Use of the word: marriage

[Magic Man]

Yes, people can do whatever they want to do, and meaninglessly and thoughtlessly use whatever word they want without making sense of anything. I grant that.

People can look at a bird and call it a tree.

Yes, another great example. That's exactly the same thing.

The point is that language changes. "Bird" will never come to mean "tree" for obvious reasons. "Marriage" coming to mean the union between two people is not much of a stretch. It's the same basic concept, just with a slight variation. A bird and a tree are two completely different things.

Why do you even use English? There are few words that mean exactly what their roots would imply? It might be better for you to just make up your own language and only use it yourself. That way no one will "ruin" it by letting it evolve.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I know you'd have a fit if we tried to deconstuct the term "daddy" into meaning that you literally had to be responsible for all our creation, and that we all are legal heirs to your property and insurance.

:curtsy:

An etemological study of this word would only yield pleasure.

I've found that it even has the connotation of sexual suprimacy in ancient Greek "you will sit on his lap and call him your daddy" - (one prostitute says to another in a play). Of course, I don't use it like that, but it is the eqivalent of "Alpha Male." O well, we can get into shades of meaning, but that may take the fun out of it. :biglaugh:

 

[doppelganger]

Sure. My argument is that the word "marriage" is too fundamentally associated with its roots. To express a more nuanced meaning, a new word must be used.

From a linguistic, semiotic and semantic perspective, your analysis here is incorrect, Nathan. The meanings of words do change and the aspect that is emphasized as the sine qua non of a word's meaning shifts as cultural and economic realities shift. Yes, traditionally "marriage" was between a man and a woman. But there is no reason why new cultural paradigms can't emphasize the love and shared life aspects going forward. We see this all the time in language, which is a living, evolving system for communicating meaning. Indeed, if you insist on clinging to your view that words must mean what you've decided they always mean, then you may very well find that you're the one who is having trouble communicating as the world changes around you and its language evolves accordingly.

Don't make the mistake of assuming the exegetical tools you were taught in Biblical Studies have a universal application. Frankly, they aren't really even that useful in Biblical Studies.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, another great example. That's exactly the same thing.

The point is that language changes. "Bird" will never come to mean "tree" for obvious reasons. "Marriage" coming to mean the union between two people is not much of a stretch. It's the same basic concept, just with a slight variation. A bird and a tree are two completely different things.

Why do you even use English? There are few words that mean exactly what their roots would imply? It might be better for you to just make up your own language and only use it yourself. That way no one will "ruin" it by letting it evolve.

You're not even addressing my argument at all. The focus of my argument is the close proximity between the roots of the words. Addressing my point about the square and circle would be more useful.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

From a linguistic, semiotic and semantic perspective, your analysis here is incorrect, Nathan. The meanings of words do change and the aspect that is emphasized as the sine qua non of a word's meaning shifts as cultural and economic realities shift. Yes, traditionally "marriage" was between a man and a woman. But there is no reason why new cultural paradigms can't emphasize the love and shared life aspects going forward. We see this all the time in language, which is a living, evolving system for communicating meaning. Indeed, if you insist on clinging to your view that words must mean what you've decided they always mean, then you may very well find that you're the one who is having trouble communicating as the world changes around you and its language evolves accordingly.

So when will a circle have edges? I'm not arguing that words never change. I am arguing that there are limits.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dunno... it seems to me like it is only a noun. The root would have to change to be used any other way.

marriage - noun
marry - verb
matrimony - adjective

I think I need to raise a few quibbling points:

- I'm fairly sure that "matrimony" comes from a different root than "marriage"
- "matrimony" is a noun
- the adjective you're looking for is probably either "marital" or "married"

 

[DallasApple]

I dunno... it seems to me like it is only a noun. The root would have to change to be used any other way.

marriage - noun
marry - verb
matrimony - adjective

Your right.."a marriage" is a noun..but it means 'the state of matrimony" right?

Why cant two same sex people be included in the "state of matrimony" and that state is called "a" "marriage"..to describe it..And if marriage is stricly a noun..Wouldnt it be wrong to say "Im married"..Wouldnt it be more propper to say.."I have a marriage" or Im "in 'a" state of matrimony?

Love

Dallas

OOPS ...I got confused adding in the word married..then read Penguins post..Married is an action word..Wow ..Im more confused than ever..

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think I need to raise a few quibbling points:

- I'm fairly sure that "matrimony" comes from a different root than "marriage"
- "matrimony" is a noun
- the adjective you're looking for is probably either "marital" or "married"

Are you confused about the "t" in "matrimony" as being unrelated to "marriage" and then list martial and married together?

 

[doppelganger]

So when will a circle have edges? I'm not arguing that words never change. I am arguing that there are limits.

When there's a reason for circles to have edges. And, no, there are no limits. Words can come to have meanings that are the dead opposite of what they used to mean.

Try and figure out what "Mrs." came from, for example.

 

[Magic Man]

So when will a circle have edges? I'm not arguing that words never change. I am arguing that there are limits.

A marriage as the union of two people for the rest of their lives can easily apply to homosexual couples. They are not fundamentally different concepts, as a circle and a square are.

 

[DallasApple]

Yes we say "my marriage"..as if its a possesion..But I still see it as a continuing or current state of being...more so than a thing..

Love

Dallas

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When there's a reason for circles to have edges. And, no, there are no limits. Words can come to have meanings that are the dead opposite of what they used to mean.

Try and figure out what "Mrs." came from, for example.

Yes, I certainly agree.

I'll be waiting then, someone to show me a four sided triangle. And the need for cornered circles, or possibly a three-wheeled bicycle.

 

[DallasApple]

What about "I got married"..wouldnt that be a noun too??? LOL!!

Like I got "hamburger meat"???

Or would it be more like "I got confused"..LOL!!!

Love

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, I certainly agree.

I'll be waiting then, someone to show me a four sided triangle. And the need for cornered circles, or possibly a three-wheeled bicycle.

You can keep up with the ridiculous and irrelevant examples all you want. It doesn't help your case, though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What about "I got married"..wouldnt that be a noun too??? LOL!!

Like I got "hamburger meat"???

Or would it be more like "I got confused"..LOL!!!

Love

Dallas

I think that "married" there is used as a periphrastic participle with the verb "got."

O well, we say what we say with little need for rhyme or reason.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You can keep up with the ridiculous and irrelevant examples all you want. It doesn't help your case, though.

It's completely relevant! All of these words are built directly on their roots, just like marriage.

 

[doppelganger]

Yes, I certainly agree.

I'll be waiting then, someone to show me a four sided triangle. And the need for cornered circles.

Just because you can't imagine what might change to alter the meaning of a word, doesn't mean that it won't change. It's harder to imagine how the meanings of some words might change than it is for others. But words do not have absolute and objective meanings. They have the meanings we ascribe to them.

And great thinkers and artists bring new meanings to old symbols. Often, the truly great visionaries are the authors of new meanings that last for centuries in common usage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So when will a circle have edges? I'm not arguing that words never change. I am arguing that there are limits.

Like applying the word "key" to something that has no teeth and is not inserted into a lock?

Like using the word "chair" to describe a person rather than a piece of furniture?

Like using the word "steerage" to describe a passenger compartment that is not used as a passage for the rudder control lines?

I think you're arguing a principle that can be very easily be shown not to be generally true, which means for it to be accepted as specifically true in this case, you have to show how the word "marriage" is different from "key", "chair", "steerage" and many other words whose definitions have changed.

 

[DallasApple]

Even if the word marriage is a noun...I still dont see how since it involves two seperate people..or even multiple ingredientsLOL!!..Why that one word can not be expanded to mean simply two people..rather than one man and one woman..(we are all people anyway)...

Love

Dallas

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just because you can't imagine what might change to alter the meaning of a word, doesn't mean that it won't change. It's harder to imagine how the meanings of some words might change than it is for others. But words do not have absolute and objective meanings. They have the meanings we choose to ascribe to them.

And great thinkers and artists bring new meanings to old symbols. Often, the truly great visionaries are the authors of new meanings that last for centuries in common usage.

Yeah, it could change. There is a possibility that we can completely forgo the fundamental meanings of Latin and Greek roots as we build our words. I hope that doesn't happen, because it will be more and more difficult to understand what a word means by parsing it. And I'm referring to quite simple things, like "bi" meaning "two" and so on.