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

Replying to Sai:

> On 10/17/07, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
>> kambra (close friend, no sex)
>> kambraci (+dim.) closer, perhaps occasional sexual relations
>
> Could you give examples of what 'close' vs 'closer' might mean, if sex
> is not a necessary factor?
kambra would be someone you like a lot, seek each other out regularly, share
confidences and some (but perhaps not the most) intimate details with. But
sex with them is simply inconceivable for whatever reason.

kambraci is much the same, but more intimate sharing (i.e. they know how
much money you make, what you like to do in bed :-) ). Sex with them is not
a regular thing; perhaps in the past; or they're available to play around on
the spur of the moment with no strings attached.
Analogue perhaps: "friends with benefits" though I'm not up on current slang
:-(
>
>> karande (+le < leñ 'good') definitely implies a sexual relationship,
>> though
>> not a committed one,
Just what it says. Intimate knowledge of each other, frequent contact and
sex; but no compelling need for each other, in fact a Kash might have
several such karande. But over time it might well lead to becoming lovers.
>
Women's relationships are comparable in terms of intimacy/info. shared, but
sex itself is much less important (see below); though there are ways around
that...(herbals, pheromones)

>> anjetre umut (public, general) civil marriage (common)
>> anjetre çehamaka (spiritual) religious marriage (rarer, only after "years
>> of
>> practice" :-)  )
>
> Could you elaborate on this? I presume you are referring to your
> conculture;
Yes of course.
>how does it (normally or otherwise) sanction marriage? Can
> one have legal without religious _YES_ *and* vice versa _NO_?
see http://cinduworld.tripod.com/kashkulchur.htm
scroll down about halfway to "your place or mine?" And there may be more in
http://cinduworld.tripod.com/zaharsurvey.htm (see Section III).
>
>> I like this one:
>> tisa:  formal 2nd pers. pronoun, commoner-to-aristocrat, formerly used in
>> a
>> close, most often M/M sexual relationship; sometimes, when the person of
>> lesser status was the sexually dominant partner, it would be the
>> aristocrat
>> who used it, albeit often ironically; nowadays, while somewhat rare, it
>> is
>> used by either partner, almost always with clear humorous or ironic
>> intent.
>> (ult. < sisa 'love[r]')
>
> If I'm reading the derivation correctly... 2p (archaic?) formal
> pronoun, just generally, is derived from 'love(r)'? That is a bit...
> unusual. ;)
>
> Why only used in a m/m relationship? Do you have a history of these
> being associated with inter-class relationships?
Only in the case of aristo/wealthy + commoner/poorer, and mainly M/M because
they tend to have more inter-class contact. Aristo women generally do not
work...but hey, anything can happen!!  And class distinctions have become
less stringent in most Kash societies.

Amongst the Kash, M/M relationships are frequent and important; perhaps
historically/genetically due to male-bonding in hunting; in practical terms,
because the women are sexually receptive/fertile only every 3 months or so.

>Any particular social
> connotations to being dominant?
No; though if you're the son/daughter of a titled person, it might be a bit
embarrassing if it became known that your lower-class lover lords it over
you emotionally/physically or whatever :-))

(And are you distinguishing 'dominant'
> / 'submissive' from 'top' / 'bottom'? Viz.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_and_bottom_in_sex_and_BDSM> [never
> thought I'd use that link *here* :-P])
Haven't checked that link but will :-) But I personally (and the Kash too,
I'm sure) would distinguish the two.