Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Defending monosexuals

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Saturday, May 31, 2008, 18:29
Eugene Oh wrote:
> That email was more or less tongue-in-cheek. I thought it was quite a nifty > (hence my categorising it as "funny") way of Mark's to encompass both homo- > and heterosexuals with the word, punning on "bi-".
Yes, it is nifty. [snip]
> Of course, we also vaguely know why "bisexual" won out over > "amphoterosexual" ultimately, given the number of syllables in each and the > general laziness of humans.
I'm not sure, in fact, whether 'amphoterosexual' ever got launched. But if it had, it would surely have got shortened to 'ampho' :) .................................... Mark J. Reed wrote: > ISTR there was a period when "ambisexual" was in contention. Was it? That would've added to the existing potential ambiguity. According to my dictionary 'ambisexual' means: "(esp. of sexual characteristics, e.g. pubic hair) common to both sexes." Maybe we should leave it at that. 'Bisexual' is potentially ambiguously (i.e. either 'hermaphrodite' or 'attracted to members of both sexes') - but I guess context practically always makes the meaning clear. AFAIK the abbreviation _bi_ is used only with the second meaning. [snip] > > I wasn't coining, though. I'm sure I've seen the term "monosexual" > used this way before... Aw, I thought I was seeing an example of your creative genius. Another illusion shattered ;) But 'monosexual' is a fairly obvious word to use in contrast to bisexual (in either of its meanings), so I guess it may well have occurred before. Indeed, before Eugene drew attention to it, I thought nothing of it. he meaning was clear and the formation quite normal. Now had you written 'trisexual' - that would've been rather odd. Some strange conworld I guess :) -- Ray ================================== ================================== Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora. [William of Ockham]


Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>