Re: Words for relationships that don't have good analogues in English

On 10/17/07, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> On 10/17/07, Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:
> > (Why do I ask? I'm in a new relationship [whee!], with a conlanger no
> > less,
>
> A relationship with a conlanger?! What were you thinking?!  You're
> supposed to find someone who will pull you back to reality every once
> in a while, not dive in with you!!
You are‽‽

But, but... it's so much more fun to have someone to dive with. :)

(Besides, my other relationship is with a non-conlanging hacker. So I
suppose each can pull me back to their own 'reality' every so often?
Personally I rather like having a multiplexed one...)

> (Congratulations!)
(Thanks!)

On 10/17/07, Douglas Koller <laokou@...> wrote:
> Mostly along the hetero/homo divide:
What motivates this? The terms from either side seem to be only
moderately related; what're the derivations?

Why did you decide to have that sort of divide, rather than a purely
gendered one as in English (e.g. a gay male married couple still call
each other 'husband').

> díbs  king (regnant)
> fsebs  king (his homo consort)
> merens  queen (his hetero consort)
> öns  queen (regnant)
> ats  queen (her lesbian consort)
> çürs  king (her hetero consort)
What's the difference between díbs/fsebs, öns/ats? Power?

> "paramour" would be a cool word to develop.
It's fairly loaded with connotation. ;)

> I'd've thought I had a word for "marry," but no, just "be married" which is
>
> sau zdarsölíörasaub shut kízgalezh
>
> kindasorta "walk along with a spouse"
/me giggles a bit

Neat.

> It occurs to me that these terms seem to describe as their parameters serial
> monogamy. If that's not your bag, I'm afraid you'll have to wait for
> Géarthnuns to catch up.
*shrug* I'm not a monogamist, serial or otherwise, but I'm not opposed. :)

- Sai

Reply