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

Sai Emrys wrote:
> What words for relationships do you have in your conlang(s), or are
> there in interesting other languages I might not know, that do not
> have good analogues in normal English?
Great timing!  It just happens that I've been revising the kinship terms
in my currently-most-developed conlang, Tirazdak, which is spoken in a
conculture where polyamorous "group marriages" are the norm.  In this
culture, descent is reckoned strictly matrilineally, because you know
who your mother is, but because your mother probably has several
"husbands" (and maybe other lovers as well -- the definition of
"marriage" doesn't include sexual exclusivity), you don't know or care
who your biological father is.

As a child in this culture, you'd typically have three kinds of
"parents" (primary adult caregivers):

_mamá_ "womb-mother" (your actual biological mother);

_tatá_ "house-mother" or maybe "godmother" (your mother's "wife");

_babá_ "house-father" or "godfather" (your mother's "husband", who might
or might not be your biological father).

You'd have, obviously, one _mamá_, plus anywhere from zero to about
three or four of each of the other two.  All of them are jointly and
equally responsible for insuring that your physical and emotional needs
are met.  (Typically a woman will choose not to have children until
she's got at least two or three spouses, for backup and redundancy in
child-rearing.)

Other kin terms in this system, with some possible English translations,
include:

[Note: in this language, all common nouns (but not proper names) have
suffixes marking gender and number.  There are eight genders, but only
three of them are relevant here: masculine (-tan/-dan), feminine
(-ti/-di), common (-nas).  (For simplicity, I'm only giving the singular
forms.)  But the three "parent" terms mentioned above are treated as
proper names and thus don't take the suffixes; likewise the three
"grandparent" terms mentioned below.]

_karazdi_ "wife", _karazdan_ "husband", _karaznas_ "spouse" (see above);

_sefti_ "womb-sister", _seftan_ "womb-brother", _sevnas_ "womb-sibling"
(biological child of the same mother, who may or may not have the same
biological father, and is thus either a full sibling or a half-sibling);

_sendi_ "demi-sister", _sendan_ "demi-brother", _sennas_ "demi-sibling"
(biological child of your mother's "wife", who may or may not have the
same biological father, and is thus either a half-sibling or genetically
unrelated);

_mindi_ "womb-daughter", _mindan_ "womb-son", _minnas_ "womb-child" (a
woman's own biological child);

_gyendi_ "house-daughter", _gyendan_ "house-son", _gyennas_
"house-child" (biological child of your "wife" (if you're a man, you may
or may not be the child's biological father));

[Note that a woman can have either or both kinds of children, _min_ and
  _gyen_, but a man can only have _gyen_.]

_memendi_, _memendan_, _memennas_ (matrilineal aunt or uncle; mother's
womb-sibling);

_benandi_, _benandan_, _benannas_ (non-matrilineal aunt or uncle;
mother's house-sibling OR either kind of sibling of any other parent);

_seppédi_, _seppédan_, _seppénas_ (matrilineal first cousin; womb-child
of mother's womb-sibling);

_sembédi_, _sembédan_, _sembénas_ (non-matrilineal first cousin;
house-child of mother's womb-sibling OR any child of mother's
house-sibling OR any child of either kind of sibling of any other parent);

_mimbédi_, _mimbédan_, _mimbénas_ (matrilineal niece or nephew;
womb-child of your womb-sister);

_gyembédi_, _gyembédan_, _gyembénas_ (non-matrilineal niece or nephew;
house-child of your womb-sibling OR any child of your house-sibling);

_mamú_ (maternal grandmother; your womb-mother's womb-mother);

_tatú_ (non-matrilineal "grandmother"; your womb-mother's house-mother
OR either kind of mother of any other of your parents);

_babú_ (non-matrilineal "grandfather"; male parent (maybe biological
father, maybe not) of any of your parents);

_mindúdi_, _mindúdan_, _mindúnas_ (matrilineal grandchild; womb-child of
your womb-child [thus you must be a woman]);

_gyendúdi_, _gyendúdan_, _gyendúnas_ (non-matrilineal grandchild;
house-child of your womb-child OR any child of your house-child).

It gets more complicated as the relationships get more remote
(great-grandparents, great aunts/uncles, Nth cousins N times removed,
etc.), and I haven't got it all figured out yet, but I envision a fairly
logical and transparent system for deriving these terms by affixation
from those already given.  One requirement is that every kin term must
be explicitly either matrilineal or not, by choice of lexical stem
rather than by affixation.
>
> Please include etymology and as coherent an explanation/definition as
> you can manage. I'd be especially interested in your reason(ing)s for
> creating them.
Etymologies are vague to nonexistent at this point -- for the language
as a whole, not just for kinship and relationship terms.  But as you can
see from the above terms, I have tried to make related terms sound
related, perhaps implying things about their history that I haven't yet
thought out.  (A complication here is that, within the alternate reality
of this conworld, the language may or may not have a "real" history; it
may in fact be a conlang, and its purported history (its speakers claim
that it's a revival of the language of ancient Atlantis) may be totally
bogus.  So if something doesn't have a plausible diachronic explanation,
that's my excuse.)
>
> I do specifically mean both what Ye Generic Western Culture would term
> romantic/sexual relationships and non-.
One interesting quirk of this language (which I didn't set out to make
that way; it just grew naturally out of other design choices I'd already
made) is that there's no way to say "straight" or "gay" in the abstract,
independent of the sex of the referent.  A straight man is
_kyeldan-i-tí_ (male lover of women); a gay man is _kyeldan-i-tán_ (male
lover of men); a bi man is _kyeldan-i-nayaz_ (male lover of people); a
straight woman is _kyeldi-ni-tán_ (female lover of men); a Lesbian is
_kyeldi-ni-tí_ (female lover of women); a bi woman is _kyeldi-ni-nayaz_
(female lover of people).
>
> Grammarwise, I mean both terms for the relationshipee (e.g. husband,
> booty call, paramour, friend, brother-in-arms) and the relationship
> per se (e.g. marriage, friendship with benefits, triad, intimate
> network),  verbs (e.g. marry, handfast), feelings (e.g. compersion,
> jealousy, love, limerence), and whatever other related terms may come
> up; please feel free to interpret this prompt liberally. The only
> restrictive bit is that I'd like to see as much in the way of
> non-English-copying as possible.
A lot of that is handled by Tirazdak's gender system and other
grammatical devices.  The same noun stem can have several genders, with
different but related meanings.  For example, "spouse" is _karazdi_,
_karazdan_, or _karaznas_ (see above); the institution of polyamorous
group marriage is _karazyu_; a particular "marriage-group" (perhaps it
could be called in English a "multiple", by analogy with "couple") is
_karaznal_.  The bare stem, with no gender-number suffix, is a stative
verb _karaz_ (to be "married"); adding an inchoative prefix to that
gives you an active verb _enkaraz_ (to get "married").
>
> If you've wanted to have a word for ___ but haven't quite figured it
> out, include that too. ;)
There are a lot of words I haven't "discovered" yet for various kinds of
relationships, both sexual and non-sexual.  Among the few I do have
already are:

_kyel_ -- the most neutral, general word for sex; it means any kind of
sexual activity between consenting adults.  Thus, _kyeldan_, _kyeldi_,
or _kyelnas_ means "sexual partner" in a very general sense, implying
nothing about whether the relationship is a quickie, a life partnership,
or anything in between.

_tyen_ -- the most neutral, general word for friendship, without regard
to how close or long-term the friendship is or to whether or not it
includes a sexual component.  Thus, _tyendan_, _tyendi_, or _tyennas_
means any kind of friend.

Some more specific kinds of relationships that I don't yet have words
for (using upper-case letters as placeholders so that I can refer to one
in the definition of another) are:

A:  "platonic friend" -- a term that makes it explicit that the
relationship has no sexual component, but says nothing about the degree
of emotional intimacy.

B:  "friend with benefits" -- a term that says explicitly that the
relationship does include sex, with the implication that the sex is
casual but more than occasional (that it happens on at least a somewhat
regular basis) and that the emotional relationship is relaxed and
comfortable but may or may not be really intimate.

C:  "fuck-buddy" -- a term that also means a relationship involving
ongoing casual sex, but implies a certain emotional distance, a lack of
real emotional intimacy.

D:  "lover" -- a term that implies both a fairly long-term sexual
relationship and a considerable degree of emotional inimacy, but which
totally lacks the English word's connotations of sexual exclusivity.

E:  a stranger or casual acquaintance whom one finds sexually
attractive; someone with whom one has not had sex but would like to.  To
address someone as E is at least flirting, if not an outright
proposition (it sort of depends on the context).  To reply in kind is
to accept the implied invitation, or at least to keep the flirtation
going.  To politely but definitively reject such an invitation, one
replies using a different form of address that has friendly but
explicitly non-sexual connotations, such as A.  To reject such an
invitation provisionally (something along the lines of "not now, but
maybe some other time"), one replies using a more neutral term such as
_tyen_ (one which refers to a relationship that may or may not have a
sexual component).  To rudely reject such an invitation, leaving the
other person with no face-saving exit strategy, one would say something
like, "I am not your E" (_wa khwé xia E_) -- but such behavior is
extremely rare, because there are very few situations in which a sexual
invitation would be taken as an insult.

F:  "trick", "pickup", "one-night stand" -- someone with whom one has
had sex on a specific occasion, with no expectation of any ongoing
relationship, however casual (but also not excluding the possibility of
a future ongoing relationship, sexual or otherwise).

G:  someone with whom one has enjoyed casual sex in the past, and hopes
to do so again, but with whom there is no current ongoing sexual
relationship (and there may or may not be an ongoing non-sexual
friendship); perhaps a former F.

H:  a former D who is now an A.

I:  a former D who is now a B, a C, or an occasional F.

J:  a former D with whom one is no longer on friendly terms, with or
without sex.  The implication is that the D relationship ended badly and
that one blames the other for that and/or vice versa.

K:  "play partner" -- a term referring to an ongoing, casual sexual
relationship that differs from B or C in that the relationship is based
largely on a mutual interest in some specific type of sexual activity.

L:  someone who is a D to a third person to whom one is also a D -- a
"lover's lover" -- but with whom one's own relationship is either
platonic (A) or only casually sexual (B or C).

M:  "close platonic friend" -- a relationship involving a high degree of
emotional intimacy but no sex.

As you've no doubt gathered by now, this conculture is much more
sex-positive than our culture, and I want the language to reflect that
by having a rich vocabulary of sexual relationship terms.  But it's also
more (for want of a better term) "relationship-positive" in general, and
I want the language to have a richly nuanced vocabulary for describing
all kinds of relationships, not just sexual ones.  However,
vocabulary-building has never been one of my strong points as a
conlanger.  My usual tendency is to get obsessed with the grammar and
totally neglect the lexicon, so I end up with a detailed abstract
skeleton of a language in which I can't really say much of anything.
I'm trying to avoid that tendency with this project; we'll see.

>
> Thanks!
>
> - Sai
>
> (Why do I ask? I'm in a new relationship [whee!], with a conlanger no
> less, and we're talking meta about titling and the like. And available
> terms not necessarily being well-matching. And naturally, we're
> conlangers, so.... ;))
>
>
Congratulations!  _xrin plé ve!_ (may the two of you be happy!)

- Tim

Replies