On changing names - about as OT as you can get
johanna at nobrandheroine.net
Wed Mar 12 22:46:28 EST 2003
> If someone refers to a spouse, husband or wife, monogamy is a perfectly
> valid assumption--i.e. something you assume to be true until provided
> contrary evidence. It isn't a given, but then, categorical assumptions
> don't have to be universal to be true. And you gloss too quickly over
> the legal hassles of trying to enter a formal relationship with a
> married person. The fact they are currently married will present not
> insignificant problems should you desire marriage with that person later
No, I wasn't talking about divorce, I was talking, as I said, about
> Which boils down to my reaction when I hear someone refer to a "partner"
> vs. "spouse" is that I then am less inclined to expect children to enter
> the conversation at some point. And even *less* inclined to assume that
> any children mentioned are the product of that person and the "partner".
But some couples -cannot get married-. That doesn't mean that they
automatically don't want, or will never raise, children, & I find it
unfair to think of them as more or less inclined than anyone else.
> Can and are inferred. That's why the terms will continue as long as
> those characteristics remain. It's causative and will persist no matter
> what you try to use in place of "spouse".
The meaning of words change over time & often do. Never say never, right?
What, after all, is a halo? Its only one more thing to keep clean.
--Christopher Fry, The Lady's Not For Burning
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj