Engaged? [Archive] - JREF Forum

tkingdoll

25th August 2007, 03:59 PM

I don't understand engagements. Either you want to get married or you don't. If you do, what's stopping you?

Ah, yes, of course. The three years of saving up to pay for the huge dress that looks like a cake, and the huge cake that looks like a dress. Plus food for hundreds of guests, pink dresses for your fiance's nieces to wear as bridesmaids, groom, best man and usher outfits, gifts for them all, flowers, favours, balloons, decorations, invites, disco/band, and so on.

Which is fine if that's what rings your bell.

However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not. That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?

We were never engaged, but then again we were married within months of meeting. And we had a very simple wedding and spent all our cash on a massive honeymoon instead. We did say no gifts, but people seem to hate that, so we asked for music gift vouchers so we could get CDs and movies. Much better than endless toasters.

I have observed two types of engagements. Those where the couple really do intend to get married, and need a few years to plan and save. Groovy. Then there is the other type of engagement, where the woman is demanding 'a ring on her finger' and the guy complies to keep her quiet while he looks for a better model. I have seen this many times, sometimes with the gender reversed. Usually it's couples who are late teens.

I also know women who demanded to get engaged because they wanted a diamond. And I know women who got married because they wanted the fairytale wedding, with little thought to the less fairytale-ish life they'd have to live with the guy afterwards.

Amusingly, there's a pre-engagement thing you can do called 'getting eternitised'. I guess it's the promise that one day you might promise that one day you might promise to stay together forever. Or something.

Ryokan

25th August 2007, 04:15 PM

quixotecoyote

25th August 2007, 04:25 PM

Speaking as someone who is engaged, I agree with the incomprehension in this thread. My fiancee has been hoping for a big fancy wedding since she was in junior high as a way (she's hinted to me) of showing up people who told her she'd never find somebody.

Now if it was me, I'd let it go since those people don't care what she does and probably won't even notice. But since it matters to her, we're having a long engagement so she can plan the perfect (and brutally expensive) wedding. I just try not to think about it too much.

Ryokan

25th August 2007, 04:30 PM

Oh, I'm actually engaged myself. Sort of. I think.

kmortis

25th August 2007, 07:15 PM

Oh, I'm actually engaged myself. Sort of. I think.

Goats don't count, Ryo.

roger

25th August 2007, 08:11 PM

never mind.

Hokulele

25th August 2007, 08:38 PM

I was engaged for 4 years before getting married. We met while I was still in school, and although we planned to marry, coursework came first. For us, the engagement was more a statement of intent for our families than much of anything else. And no, we did not have a big wedding. It was a beach party/clambake that we just happened to get married in the middle of. The largest expense was 100 pounds of Maine lobster purchased right of the boat. (Drool, drool, drool.)

Caius Textor

25th August 2007, 09:17 PM

It´s really unusual to get engaged in here in the traditional sense, and even those numbers are deminishing. Usually people "engage" when they can´t afford to get married right away, or when they find out there´s a kid on the way.
This tends to vary a lot though, our culture is not very homogeneous.

I moved in with my then-girlfriend 2 years ago. Shortly after that we adopted "husband" and "wife" styles even though we didn´t sign any papers. We will when I graduate, even though the law here would treat us as married anyway.

Orphia Nay

25th August 2007, 10:08 PM

I'd known my husband 2 months before he proposed, and we got married 2 days after that. We had no engagement ring or specially-bought wedding rings. Our 16th anniversary is in a couple of months.

As a newlywed (married 7 days now) my engagement was simply the amount of time necessary to plan the wedding ceremony after proposing marriage to my wife-to-be. Our wedding was small and was planned and completed in 2 weeks.

In my personal experience, being engaged was "necessary". The answer to your question seemed obvious to me at first. However, some people remain engaged for years...I don't know why that is. Hmmmm.....

Congratulations, newlyweds!

Oh, I'm actually engaged myself. Sort of. I think.

Congratulations! I think. :)

Marquis de Carabas

25th August 2007, 11:01 PM

Ratatoskr

26th August 2007, 12:22 AM

Strangely enough, in Norway it's the opposite. I know a whole bunch of people who are engaged, but have made no plans to marry. When I inform them that engagement is a result of asking your beloved to marry, most are quite surprised. In other words, 'engagement' has lost its meaning here.

That sounds about right yes. I know of many couples that have gotten engaged, for no specific reason. Most of them never got married, they broke up.

If I were getting engaged, it would be to "pronounce" that the person I was getting engaged to was the person I wanted to be with for the rest of my life (yeah, I'm a sucker for traditions), but to get married was something that needed some more planning.

In my family, I know when people gets engaged if often mean "we've started planning our wedding, see you in 1-2 years"

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 12:37 AM

my engagement was simply the amount of time necessary to plan the wedding ceremony after proposing marriage to my wife-to-be. Our wedding was small and was planned and completed in 2 weeks.

Those where the couple really do intend to get married, and need a few years to plan and save.

we're having a long engagement so she can plan the perfect (and brutally expensive) wedding.

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?

For us, the engagement was more a statement of intent for our families than much of anything else.

Here, that may happen in some religious families, but in everyday Dane-life, it would be incomprehensible. That's simply not the families' business to know if the couple intend to get married or not. A family inquiring "Well, are you two going to get married or not?" is something of the past.

Because humans have poor sense of smell compared to other mammals, so potential romantic rivals might not notice, particularly in light of most women's fascination with such arcane rituals as showering and applying all manner of strange smelly ointments to every available piece of skin. This is why the best option is for the man to brand his fiancee on the forehead.

You know, there's a time and place for the scientific explanation... :)

athon

26th August 2007, 12:38 AM

tkingdoll

26th August 2007, 02:03 AM

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?

You must have missed the 'marking of territory' bit in my post. How do you stop your woman finding a better man during the planning stage? Buy her a diamond! How do you stop other men approaching your woman during the planning stage? Brand her forehead!

etc

I completely agree that it's possible to plan ahead without being engaged. But I guess people like to label the section of time in between the 'yes let's' and 'I do'. Plus, it's always handy to have a practice run, I suppose. If you decide you are uncomfortable with the commitment of being engaged, then it's fortunate you didn't go all the way and get married. Better to break off an engagement than a marriage.

ooh, spin-off thread idea: why do women find diamonds so attractive? Is it just what they represent, is the way they look, a combination of both? Years of canny marketing? Diamonds seem to have a unique position, but many other stones are prettier and more expensive.

geni

26th August 2007, 02:18 AM

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?

Sure but it is a convient way to tell everyone else to start planning

Here, that may happen in some religious families, but in everyday Dane-life, it would be incomprehensible. That's simply not the families' business to know if the couple intend to get married or not. A family inquiring "Well, are you two going to get married or not?" is something of the past.

If you don't tell the family/friends:
1)they may not show up
2)Tradition demands that you get married in Gretna Green and these days that would require you to spend 3 weeks in Scotland

The other thing is demark hasn't fought worth a damn since the Second Schleswig War so the number of young men going off to war and worried about their ladies staying faithful has been limited.

Tanja

26th August 2007, 02:29 AM

This thread reminded me of the following quote I remember reading once (from Dave Barry, apparently)

Have you ever wondered why it takes a bride months and months to plan a wedding, but a good funeral can be pulled together in two days? The elements are all the same—church, minister, music, flowers, guests, food.

I recently went to a wedding that has been planned for over two years. It was supposed to happen last year, but they could not get the restaurant they wanted wit the band they wanted etc, so they postponed it. The wedding was great, but I am glad mine was smaller and more spontaneous. My husband and I never got engaged, we just decided it was time to get married. :)

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 03:04 AM

Sure but it is a convient way to tell everyone else to start planning

For what?

If you don't tell the family/friends:
1)they may not show up

I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

2)Tradition demands that you get married in Gretna Green and these days that would require you to spend 3 weeks in Scotland

"Demands"? Should people uphold traditions because others think they have meaning, or because traditions have meaning to themselves?

The other thing is demark hasn't fought worth a damn since the Second Schleswig War so the number of young men going off to war and worried about their ladies staying faithful has been limited.

Ah, but then, those off to war got married - or postponed it altogether until after the war.

athon

26th August 2007, 05:32 AM

I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

Claus, what the hell do you think an engagement actually is, if not just proclaiming intent to marry?

Athon

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 05:39 AM

Claus, what the hell do you think an engagement actually is, if not just proclaiming intent to marry?

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.

athon

26th August 2007, 05:46 AM

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.

You didn't answer the question. If it is just an intent to marry, then what's the issue? Two people who feel they want to be married discuss it and then say 'cool, let's do it'. They organise paperwork, save some money, make arrangements for an event, and in the meantime tell people they are going to get married.

What's the alternative? What do you think an engagement is, if not that?

Athon

Ian Osborne

26th August 2007, 05:52 AM

I met my partner while we were students. We were engaged within three months of getting together, but we'd known each other for over two years as friends by then.

We were engaged in the Summer of 1989. We're still together and still happy (probably because I didn't pee on her leg after proposing ;) ), but still unmarried.

incidentally, I've never understood the need to get eternitised either. What a silly ritual. I guess it was made up by the jewellers as a way of selling more rings, just like Mothers' and Fathers' Days were created by greetings cards manufacturers... :duck:

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 05:57 AM

You didn't answer the question. If it is just an intent to marry, then what's the issue? Two people who feel they want to be married discuss it and then say 'cool, let's do it'. They organise paperwork, save some money, make arrangements for an event, and in the meantime tell people they are going to get married.

What's the alternative? What do you think an engagement is, if not that?

Ah, but there is sometimes a little more to it than that, isn't there? There's the ring issue, which Teek pointed out - a rather anti-feministic thing. There's the need to publically announce plans to marry, maybe years ahead in time. And there's the pressure on women that start at a very early age. The whole ritual of engagement seems to have little value in today's modern world. Apparently, in Norway, it has lost its original meaning altogether.

The alternative? Just live together, and if you want to get married, announce a date, and start planning.

athon

26th August 2007, 06:18 AM

Ah, but there is sometimes a little more to it than that, isn't there?

Such as? I ask yet again, what is an engagement, then, if not an intent to marry? Why is it so difficult for you to answer that I have to ask three times?

There's the ring issue, which Teek pointed out - a rather anti-feministic thing.

I'm not sure I understand why it is an 'anti-feministic' thing, however this is a separate issue. Asking 'why do people get rings at engagements?' is rather different to 'why do people get engaged?'.

There's the need to publically announce plans to marry, maybe years ahead in time.

The alternative is what? Keeping it a secret? Are you serious? Two people begin to make plans to get married, and they tell people this. That is an engagement. My brother has been engaged for about a year to his fiancee and the mother of his kid. They're trying to scrape enough together to have a nice little wedding, and in the meantime are telling people that they love each other enough to be married.

And there's the pressure on women that start at a very early age.

Huh? What does this have to do with being engaged? This is a marriage issue more than just an engagement one.

The alternative? Just live together, and if you want to get married, announce a date, and start planning.

I've seriously missed something here, then. You'll have to explain what an engagement is in Denmark in which case. Because in my corner of the world, and in the US, and in the UK, that is an engagement. Sometimes the date isn't set in stone due to planning or funding constraints, but it's still an intent to marry.

Athon

geni

26th August 2007, 06:57 AM

For what?

Turning up.

I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

Convient way to do it.

"Demands"? Should people uphold traditions because others think they have meaning, or because traditions have meaning to themselves?

The tradition has a meaning. There are still relivant legal issues. You might want to consider where Gretna Green is geographicaly.

Ah, but then, those off to war got married - or postponed it altogether until after the war.

Nyet. Can't get married before war since you don't really have time. Engagement is the tool by which people make it clear that the duration of the war is only a postponement. Engagement rings in particular are due to this.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 07:07 AM

Such as? I ask yet again, what is an engagement, then, if not an intent to marry? Why is it so difficult for you to answer that I have to ask three times?

Why is it so difficult for you to read what I say?

I'm not sure I understand why it is an 'anti-feministic' thing, however this is a separate issue. Asking 'why do people get rings at engagements?' is rather different to 'why do people get engaged?'.

Is it? Rings at engagements have a meaning: It is a visible symbol of the commitment to marry later on. But if it is just the woman who wears an engagement ring, then it is very much anti-feministic. Or, if you like, anti-equality.

The alternative is what? Keeping it a secret? Are you serious? Two people begin to make plans to get married, and they tell people this. That is an engagement. My brother has been engaged for about a year to his fiancee and the mother of his kid. They're trying to scrape enough together to have a nice little wedding, and in the meantime are telling people that they love each other enough to be married.

No, I am not saying they should keep it a secret. The alternative is - like I said - live together, and if you want to get married, announce the date.

Huh? What does this have to do with being engaged? This is a marriage issue more than just an engagement one.

But engagement is seen as a necessary preamble to marriage. Which is what I find peculiar, in this day and age.

I've seriously missed something here, then. You'll have to explain what an engagement is in Denmark in which case. Because in my corner of the world, and in the US, and in the UK, that is an engagement. Sometimes the date isn't set in stone due to planning or funding constraints, but it's still an intent to marry.

Engagement in Denmark is the same. But - again, like I said - people here don't "get engaged". We skip that. No rings (or ring), no ceremonials. Couples live together, and at some point, if they decide to get married, they get married. But no formal announcements of "engagement".

Luciana

26th August 2007, 07:13 AM

You must have missed the 'marking of territory' bit in my post. How do you stop your woman finding a better man during the planning stage? Buy her a diamond! How do you stop other men approaching your woman during the planning stage? Brand her forehead!

This is curious, around here, if they get engaged at all, both men and women get rings. On the left hand means they're married, on the right hand means they're engaged. It's a gold ring for both. The definitive ones are exchanged, of course, at the wedding ceremony.

I believe engagement means different things. a) we have the date, let's get engaged until then; b) we don't have a date or definite plans, but this is more than a passing relationship. This one works also for couples who never intend to get legally married.

I believe it's only a stage, not a black and white thing, as things related to relationships.

Not that anyone is asking, but I think that spending an awful lot of money on a wedding ceremony is only acceptable if you're wealthy. If you're not, that money is better saved for the honeymoon and the future.

I know a woman who spent all her savings, including an inheritance, in a party. Two years later both lots their jobs and for six months they ate rice and bananas and she had a nervous breakdown because of all the debts. Wow, I hope that was a great party.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 07:16 AM

Turning up.

Like I said, announcing a marriage date will do the trick. Why wouldn't it?

Convient way to do it.

Just as convenient as announcing they will get married a particular day.

The tradition has a meaning.

But to whom?

There are still relivant legal issues.

What legal issues?

You might want to consider where Gretna Green is geographicaly.

Yes, the Scottish Las Vegas. So?

Nyet. Can't get married before war since you don't really have time. Engagement is the tool by which people make it clear that the duration of the war is only a postponement.

How do you know you don't really have time?

Engagement rings in particular are due to this.

Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_rings#History)

Brian Pears

26th August 2007, 07:37 AM

What about your country? Do people (still) get engaged? If so, why?

A few weeks ago a couple of youngsters I know announced that they were 'engaged', but when I asked if they'd 'named the day' - ie arranged a date for the marriage - they burst out laughing as if that was a ridiculous notion.

Another young couple - the girl is a distant relative - held an "engagement party" as a prelude to the birth of their daughter, but again show no inclination to marry.

I suspect that "engagement" these days is a state in itself rather than a prelude to marriage. Something to give a semblance of 'respectability' to their cohabitation wthout the legal commitment of marriage.

People who want to marry, on the other hand, tend to live together and then marry without any formal 'engagement' - others just live together without any thoughts of either engagement or marriage. So, without any real evidence, I think that heterosexual couples these days mostly divide into three groups

1) Those who cohabit then marry.
2) Those who cohabit and are 'engaged'.
3) Those who cohabit.

In recent years I don't know of anyone who has taken the traditional route of a formal engagement followed by marriage - nor anyone who hasn't cohabited before marriage.

For my own part - my wife and I lived together for four months and then decided to marry - and three days after making that decision we married in a civil ceremony. (That was in 1980 - more notice is needed these days.) We both wanted something very quiet so we told nobody of our intention to marry apart from the two close friends who acted as witnesses - even our parents weren't informed until afterwards. I thoroughly recommend this practice. :D

geni

26th August 2007, 07:54 AM

Like I said, announcing a marriage date will do the trick. Why wouldn't it?

Well to start with any randomly chosen date will result in a large number of no shows due to prior comittments

Just as convenient as announcing they will get married a particular day.

see above announcing a particular day has problems.

But to whom?

Signficant chucnk of the UK population.

What legal issues?

Differences between english and welsh law and scotish law.

Yes, the Scottish Las Vegas. So?

Not remotely.

How do you know you don't really have time?

Time between reciveing call up papers and have to join the relivant unit compared to typical time to plan a weding.

Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_rings#History)

Dude that has like zero citations and is mostly talking about the upper class.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 08:11 AM

Well to start with any randomly chosen date will result in a large number of no shows due to prior comittments

Why is a marriage date announced without a prior engagement "randomly chosen", but a marriage date announced with a prior engagement is not?

Signficant chucnk of the UK population.

Evidence?

Differences between english and welsh law and scotish law.

Such as?

Not remotely.

OK, Gretna Green is not a preferred place to marry. What did you mean, then?

Time between reciveing call up papers and have to join the relivant unit compared to typical time to plan a weding.

But weddings don't need to be planned way ahead in time. Find someone who can marry you, and go.

What, you never heard of marriages at sea?

Dude that has like zero citations and is mostly talking about the upper class.

Dude, I don't see you coming up with better references. Or even references at all.

geni

26th August 2007, 08:42 AM

Why is a marriage date announced without a prior engagement "randomly chosen", but a marriage date announced with a prior engagement is not?

Because it gives the family a chance to sort out what dates are doable.

Evidence?

~1/8th of scotish wedings take place there.

Such as?

Question not well enough diffined we are talking about two seperate legal systems. There are various differences one is that 16 year olds do not require parental permission to marry in scotland.

OK, Gretna Green is not a preferred place to marry. What did you mean, then?

It is but not for the same reasons as vegas and I don't think it has casinos or neon on a large scale.

But weddings don't need to be planned way ahead in time. Find someone who can marry you, and go.

Historicaly this hasn't been the case in england. Generaly major contractal arangements whould be planned ahead of time.

What, you never heard of marriages at sea?

Legal validity isn't always great.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 09:13 AM

Because it gives the family a chance to sort out what dates are doable.

That is only a reassertation of your postulate. You need to explain why this isn't possible with a marriage date sans engagement.

~1/8th of scotish wedings take place there.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Question not well enough diffined we are talking about two seperate legal systems. There are various differences one is that 16 year olds do not require parental permission to marry in scotland.

What does that have to do with engagement?

It is but not for the same reasons as vegas and I don't think it has casinos or neon on a large scale.

Nevertheless, people go to both places in great numbers to get married.

Historicaly this hasn't been the case in england. Generaly major contractal arangements whould be planned ahead of time.

Evidence?

Legal validity isn't always great.

What does that have to do with whether it is possible to marry quickly?

Any chance of a reference of your claim that engagement rings are due in particular to the postponement of marriage due to war?

geni

26th August 2007, 09:43 AM

That is only a reassertation of your postulate. You need to explain why this isn't possible with a marriage date sans engagement.

It's posible but since you would be going for an engagement in everything but name there would be little reason to do so.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Provideing evidences

What does that have to do with engagement?

Marriage Act 1753 in effects mandates a minium of 3 weeks engagement.

Nevertheless, people go to both places in great numbers to get married.

Vegas is what I understand is technicaly called a city. Gretna Green is a small village.

Evidence?

Marriage Act 1753

What does that have to do with whether it is possible to marry quickly?

legaly invalid marrages are largely meaningless

Any chance of a reference of your claim that engagement rings are due in particular to the postponement of marriage due to war?

nope google reacts badly to any mention of ww2 and engage.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 09:56 AM

It's posible but since you would be going for an engagement in everything but name there would be little reason to do so.

Rrrrrright. :rolleyes:

Marriage Act 1753 in effects mandates a minium of 3 weeks engagement.

Where does it say that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753)

If true, is it still mandatory with 3 weeks of engagement?

Vegas is what I understand is technicaly called a city. Gretna Green is a small village.

And this is relevant how?

legaly invalid marrages are largely meaningless

Wrong. (http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/ht/marriedatsea.htm)

nope google reacts badly to any mention of ww2 and engage.

Too bad for your argument.

TragicMonkey

26th August 2007, 10:07 AM

I can't believe nobody's brought up the whole point of engagement:

It's to give your friends and family time to find ways to show you what a horrible choice you've made and how you're about to ruin your life.

If they can't convince you to snap out of it in the time allotted, either your love is strong enough to make it through, or else you're stupid enough to deserve the disaster you're bringing upon yourself.

And if you think people aren't going to say "I told you so!" during the divorce proceedings, well, you're naive and that maniac you married is going to have you on toast in the settlement.

Ysidro

26th August 2007, 03:43 PM

I'm friends with at least two couples where both partners where/wore engagement rings. None of them had gemstones at all, IIRC.

Never heard of getting "eternitised" before. Sounds rather silly, though I can't find much information about it beyond what's been mentioned here.

Claus, are you saying that weddings are pretty much spur of the moment things over there? Because otherwise I can't see how there isn't an engagement.

Mind you, there's the whole "fairytale tradition gimie diamonds and I'm going to show everything off" engagement. Then there's the "let's get married, we'll tell everyone, and take some time to put our affairs in order. Oh and there may or may not be a ring involved in this." Don't get them confused. Both ostensibly end in marriage, but one is purely a show-and-tell event.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 03:53 PM

Claus, are you saying that weddings are pretty much spur of the moment things over there? Because otherwise I can't see how there isn't an engagement.

Oh, no, marriages are very much the planned event. Couples just don't announce their "engagement". They go straight from living together for a while (often years, maybe more than a decade, sometimes raising a family, buying a house etc inbetween), to announcing that they are getting married.

Ryokan

26th August 2007, 03:56 PM

Oh, no, marriages are very much the planned event. Couples just don't announce their "engagement". They go straight from living together for a while (often years, maybe more than a decade, sometimes raising a family, buying a house etc inbetween), to announcing that they are getting married.

Well, technically they're engaged then.

If you ask someone to marry, and they say yes, then you're engaged until the wedding ceremony takes place.

ETA: The fact that there's so much confusion around what an engagement actually is just proves that the word engagement has lost its meaning.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 04:02 PM

athon

26th August 2007, 04:16 PM

Well, technically they're engaged then.

If you ask someone to marry, and they say yes, then you're engaged until the wedding ceremony takes place.

ETA: The fact that there's so much confusion around what an engagement actually is just proves that the word engagement has lost its meaning.

I agree, which is why I've been asking for a definition of 'engagement'. If Claus had said 'why is there so much ceremony about the engagement', I might agree. Myself and NC haven't had (and won't have) an engagement party. I bought her a small opal pendant as a gift, not because tradition demanded it but rather I felt I wanted to mark the moment with something special.

However, we are engaged in every sense of the word.

Athon

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 04:25 PM

I agree, which is why I've been asking for a definition of 'engagement'. If Claus had said 'why is there so much ceremony about the engagement', I might agree. Myself and NC haven't had (and won't have) an engagement party. I bought her a small opal pendant as a gift, not because tradition demanded it but rather I felt I wanted to mark the moment with something special.

That's exactly what I did, mate: Ask why there is such a hubba hubba about engagement - especially when it seems to have lost its original meaning.

However, we are engaged in every sense of the word.

Ayup. But why do you feel the need to proclaim the intent to marry, without actually naming a date?

quixotecoyote

26th August 2007, 04:29 PM

Indeed. Because I've never heard that definition before!

I've never heard of a different one. Odd.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 04:35 PM

I've never heard of a different one. Odd.

There's a difference: Intent without a set goal.

When you ask someone to marry you, you set a date.

When you agree to get engaged, you agree to get married, but you don't set a date.

The Atheist

26th August 2007, 04:36 PM

But what is the point of upholding a tradition, if it doesn't mean anything?

Tr this instead:

This tradition means nothing to me, so it should be dispensed with.

Couple of other points:

Anti-feminism??????????

Maybe in some cases. Personally, it was "buy an engagement ring or wake up sans ***** tomorrow."

So, the reason I spent two grand of hard-won cash was cowardly, sure.

Anti-feminist, no way. The only choice I had was how to pay for it.

Aside from seeing no harm in a tradition which ....

....does no harm at all.

So what? Lots of women love being engaged - I'm sure some men do, too, but they possibly would be the ones marking territory - and I'm sorry, but Claus does not get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't. Especially when the world's full of useless and stupid traditions. I'd rate all of the following as a great deal more useless than engagements. (Much as I think engagements are stoopid!)

Easter eggs
Sant Claus
Tooth fairy
St Valentine's Day
Mothers' Day
Fathers' Day
Birthday celebrations

But in the end, what could be funnier than Claus looking to dispense with traditions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67670&highlight=demolition+vegas+casino)

athon

26th August 2007, 04:39 PM

That's exactly what I did, mate: Ask why there is such a hubba hubba about engagement - especially when it seems to have lost its original meaning.

Your very first post said:

In this day and age, what's the point of getting engaged?

You then quoted a historical source which gave historical tradition why engagements were publicised occasions. But at no point was your query phrased 'why is there so much ceremony surrounding engagements today?'. Hence we're scratching our heads saying 'how can you marry without first asking one another and then informing others of your intentions?'.

Ayup. But why do you feel the need to proclaim the intent to marry, without actually naming a date?

Ah, and here we are again. Make up your mind; is the ceremony surrounding it which bothers you or the fact that people tell others of their intention? Which is it? Because one is an actual engagement, the other is a celebration of the engagement.

I ask you this as an answer; why would you keep your intention a secret? The reason we haven't set a firm date is that it depends on numerous factors such as availability of venues, costs, negotiation of when people can make it etc.

Athon

The Atheist

26th August 2007, 04:41 PM

When you agree to get engaged, you agree to get married, but you don't set a date.

Demonstrably wrong.

Maybe that applies in the minute percentage of the world which constitues the Monarchy of Denmark, but in the rest of the world you are so wrong it is half-past laughable.

I can disprove your statement all on my own.

Sure, lots of people have no exact date, but I'd say the majority (and definitely the vast majority of the hundreds of married couples I know and have known) usually look to get married, "next December", or some reasonably specific date, subject to availability, etc.

Now change the subject.

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 04:45 PM

Couple of other points:

Anti-feminism??????????

Maybe in some cases. Personally, it was "buy an engagement ring or wake up sans ***** tomorrow."

So, the reason I spent two grand of hard-won cash was cowardly, sure.

Yeah. You discovered you had to pay for sex.

Anti-feminist, no way. The only choice I had was how to pay for it.

Oh? How is paying for sex pro-feminist?

Aside from seeing no harm in a tradition which ....

....does no harm at all.

So what? Lots of women love being engaged - I'm sure some men do, too, but they possibly would be the ones marking territory - and I'm sorry, but Claus does not get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't. Especially when the world's full of useless and stupid traditions. I'd rate all of the following as a great deal more useless than engagements. (Much as I think engagements are stoopid!)

Where do I claim I get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't?

Easter eggs
Sant Claus
Tooth fairy
St Valentine's Day
Mothers' Day
Fathers' Day
Birthday celebrations

Indeed. Why do we uphold traditions, if they don't mean anything to us?

But in the end, what could be funnier than Claus looking to dispense with traditions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67670&highlight=demolition+vegas+casino)

Not upholding traditions for the sake of upholding traditions, but preservation of history.

The Atheist

26th August 2007, 04:55 PM

Not upholding traditions for the sake of upholding traditions, but preservation of history.

:dl:

CFLarsen

26th August 2007, 11:46 PM

:dl:

You didn't find these funny:

How is paying for sex pro-feminist?

Where do I claim I get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't?

Why do we uphold traditions, if they don't mean anything to us?

The Atheist

27th August 2007, 12:24 AM

You didn't find these funny:

No, you're right, I found them absurd, irrelevant, or both.

How is paying for sex pro-feminist?

Now, I realise that your understanding of human sexual relationships is tempered by the fact that you lack experience in them, but the point is both ridiculous and incorrect.

Buying an engagement ring has nothing to do with paying for sex. Wives are not prostitutes.

Where do I claim I get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't?

The OP is all about your personal dislike of a tradition - again which must be tempered by the fact that you have no experience in the field. Accordingly, you're asking for people to take heed of what you say.

Fat chance.

Why do we uphold traditions, if they don't mean anything to us?

For precisely the same reasons as you want to preserve history. Would you like the link again?

CFLarsen

27th August 2007, 01:27 AM

Now, I realise that your understanding of human sexual relationships is tempered by the fact that you lack experience in them, but the point is both ridiculous and incorrect.

Buying an engagement ring has nothing to do with paying for sex. Wives are not prostitutes.

And yet, you said:

Personally, it was "buy an engagement ring or wake up sans ***** tomorrow."

The OP is all about your personal dislike of a tradition - again which must be tempered by the fact that you have no experience in the field. Accordingly, you're asking for people to take heed of what you say.

Fat chance.

Wanting people to take heed is different than demanding that others do what I want. Any "grammar stalin" would know.

For precisely the same reasons as you want to preserve history.

And what reasons are those?

The Atheist

27th August 2007, 02:24 AM

Now change the subject.

:s2:

Darth Rotor

27th August 2007, 12:58 PM

:s2:
May I suggest, for no particular reason, that you adopt Grammar Tyrant rather than Grammar Stalin as your avatar label?

This is suggested to keep in theme, as Grammar Nazi would go with Grammar Communist, or Grammar Gestapo would go with Grammar Police, or even Grammar KGB(NKVD?). What I like about Grammar Tyrant is that it connotes the generic sentiment of absolutist grammar authority by decree of TA, without pandering to any particular creed or political system.

The Atheist: a Grammar Tyrant for all seasons, or all reasons.

For your consideration.

This thought was brought to you by People for Pointless Pedantry, and, based on unsubstantiated rumor, Claus Larsen's (mythical) :goat. I promise to give it back as soon as it gives me a gallon's worth of Skeptical Yogurt.

DR

Darth Rotor

27th August 2007, 01:10 PM

I don't understand engagements. Either you want to get married or you don't. If you do, what's stopping you?
*Chorus from Fiddler on the Roof*

Tradition!
However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not.
Jewelers the world over share you annoyance, as it precludes another profit line.
That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?
I had not heard that Golden Showers were back in vogue, but if they are, I suppose some men do. :eek:
And we had a very simple wedding and spent all our cash on a massive honeymoon instead.
Briliant! I would suggest that to any couple, given what my wife and I decided after all was said and done: more for the honeymoon would have been neat.
We did say no gifts, but people seem to hate that, so we asked for music gift vouchers so we could get CDs and movies.
More brilliance. One of the first weddings I went to as a kid was a big time Italian wedding, and what went on there was a passing of the hat.

Fifties and hundreds, mostly. Saw something similar at a Greek Wedding back in 99.
Much better than endless toasters.
My wife and I decided, after a few years, that all of the silver trays and so on were fine for people with maids to polish them, but in retrospect were much less than pleased with that tradition. We one by one dispensed with them.

Then there is the other type of engagement, where the woman is demanding 'a ring on her finger' and the guy complies to keep her quiet while he looks for a better model.
Or a super model. :eye-poppi Most of them then learn about the reality of the Holy Graille legend.
I have seen this many times, sometimes with the gender reversed. Usually it's couples who are late teens.
My comments on folks getting married in that phase of their lives shall remain censored.
I also know women who demanded to get engaged because they wanted a diamond.
A baseball field is a nice present, I never thought to get my wife one. :eek: Doh!
Amusingly, there's a pre-engagement thing you can do called 'getting eternitised'. I guess it's the promise that one day you might promise that one day you might promise to stay together forever. Or something.
Is that anything like getting a bucket galvanized?

DR

NobbyNobbs

27th August 2007, 01:15 PM

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?

Here, that may happen in some religious families, but in everyday Dane-life, it would be incomprehensible. That's simply not the families' business to know if the couple intend to get married or not. A family inquiring "Well, are you two going to get married or not?" is something of the past.

You know, there's a time and place for the scientific explanation... :)

I completely agree that it's possible to plan ahead without being engaged.

I can't believe the amount of chutzpah I'm about to demonstrate, but...

Teek, I have to disagree with you.

To my way of thinking, two people (a) decide to get married, and (b) get married. There has to be some time in between (a) and (b), whether it's 5 minutes or 5 years. During this time, you are "engaged", by definition. The engagement may or may not involve a ring, it may or may not involve deciding on china patterns, it may or may not involve hiring a 12-piece orchestra, it may or may not even involve telling anybody about it. But either way, that time period exists, and that is the "engagement".

NobbyNobbs

27th August 2007, 01:18 PM

baron

27th August 2007, 01:23 PM

The word "engaged" means that a betrothal has taken place; a vow to marry at some time in the future. It's therefore the period between the agreement to marry and the actual marriage. In my case it was more like engaging the enemy, but I gather that's not always the case.

MWare

27th August 2007, 01:27 PM

In my case (I am planning on proposing this weekend), I see the proposal as the promise to dedicate the rest of my life to my gf. That's what's important IMO. The wedding is a legal arrangement which will most likely happen in a small civil event (just the two of us) at City Hall. This legal arrangement has a lot of implications since my gf is an immigrant. Some serious legal and cultural logicistics will need to be worked out between the engagement and the wedding.

The wedding will occur whenever she wants it to occur, but whether it happens next week or next year is of little importance to me. I've made the promise. I'm not sure what this "what if she finds better man" nonsense is, so I really can't speak to that. Our engagement is not a warranty period. It is the time between making the promise and getting the logistics settled for getting married.

Incidentally, I get the sense that the whole proposal, engagement, fanfares, traditions stuff is not very popular in this thread. For added punch, I'm also calling her parents Wednesday to formally ask her hand. How's that for traditions?

But pointless? I wouldn't call it that. All the time and effort I put into making the proposal and the engagement special will be abundantly obvious to her. Since my promise is to do everything I can to make her happy for the rest of my life, it doesn't seem pointless to me.

Maybe I'm a romantic. I believe this in no way contradictory to my being a skeptic.

Now having said all this, there is no 100% guarantee that she will actually say yes. Perhaps next week I may be less of a romantic. We will have to wait and see.

Brian Pears

27th August 2007, 01:42 PM

Marriage Act 1753 in effects mandates a minium of 3 weeks engagement.

You mean the act that was repealed by the Marriage Act 1836 which in turn was amended by Marriage Acts in 1898, 1936, 1949 and 1994 (I may have missed one or two). When I married in 1980 the minimum period between giving notice of marriage and marrying was 3 days, since 1994 it has been 15 days.

The Atheist

27th August 2007, 02:19 PM

May I suggest, for no particular reason, that you adopt Grammar Tyrant rather than Grammar Stalin as your avatar label?

Excellent idea, thanks.

Custom change requested!

Now having said all this, there is no 100% guarantee that she will actually say yes. Perhaps next week I may be less of a romantic. We will have to wait and see.

Probably more chance of you becoming less of a romantic in the long term if she says yes!

(Good luck!)

tkingdoll

27th August 2007, 02:24 PM

I can't believe the amount of chutzpah I'm about to demonstrate, but...

Teek, I have to disagree with you.

To my way of thinking, two people (a) decide to get married, and (b) get married. There has to be some time in between (a) and (b), whether it's 5 minutes or 5 years. During this time, you are "engaged", by definition. The engagement may or may not involve a ring, it may or may not involve deciding on china patterns, it may or may not involve hiring a 12-piece orchestra, it may or may not even involve telling anybody about it. But either way, that time period exists, and that is the "engagement".

This is nothing but a semantics debate. You are defining 'engaged' as 'the period of time between agreeing to get married and actually doing it. I am defining it as 'the period of time where a couple declare themselves engaged'. Clearly, other cultures do not call that period an engagement. My hubby and I didn't call it an engagement either, and none of the hallmarks of an engagement were present, other than an eventual wedding.

You can't say "you were engaged because Nobby Nobbs says you were according to his definition of the word."

The Atheist

27th August 2007, 02:48 PM

You can't say "you were engaged because Nobby Nobbs says you were according to his definition of the word."

No more than you claim that you weren't "engaged" because you don't like the term.

Throughout the British Commonwealth at least, "engaged" merely means that you have agreed to get married. Given the universality of meaning, backed by any dictionary you choose to use, there's not really any way out.

Interesting aside.

Dictionary.com, when I checked to make sure that some other Grammar Tyrant hadn't hacked the dictionaries in my absence, I looked up "betroth", which brought up these ads:

Ads by Google
The Truth About Hell
No One Will Burn in Hell For All Eternity-And We Can Prove It!
www.realtruth.org

God is Warning the World
Repent or perish! 3 prophecies re the coming judgement of God
www.godswarningtotheworld.com/

:dl:

I've always thought god must be pretty useless when people have to resort to paying for ads for him.

The Atheist

27th August 2007, 02:49 PM

May I suggest, for no particular reason, that you adopt Grammar Tyrant rather than Grammar Stalin as your avatar label?

And done, as quickly as that!

Good thought, cheers.

tkingdoll

27th August 2007, 02:53 PM

No more than you claim that you weren't "engaged" because you don't like the term.

Throughout the British Commonwealth at least, "engaged" merely means that you have agreed to get married. Given the universality of meaning, backed by any dictionary you choose to use, there's not really any way out.

Sorry, but in the UK, it is absolutely clearly defined. Many, many people are married but were never engaged. An engagement is a period whereby the couple announce their engagement, the woman usually has a ring, often an engagement party, etc. But always, always, the couple call themselves engaged and refer to each other as 'fiance'.

There are people who don't do any of the above, but have to wait a few weeks to get married because of the law, as per my hubby and myself. They don't call themselves engaged, and no-one else does either.

Engaged is a really specific thing in the UK to anyone who has ever been engaged, or avoided it. Simply "waiting for the legal paperwork to go through" is not it.

Engaged is not a legal term. This is nothing but a semantics debate based on differences in usage. You might as well argue that 'fanny' means buttocks. In the UK, it does not.

And as has already been demonstrated here, many people get engaged with no intention of marrying. Does that mean they're not really engaged? Cause TA and Nobby say so?

HarryKeogh

27th August 2007, 03:29 PM

There are people who don't do any of the above, but have to wait a few weeks to get married because of the law, as per my hubby and myself. They don't call themselves engaged, and no-one else does either.

I would. I never saw an engagement as requiring a ring, a party or special announcement. In my neck of the woods a conversation would be like:

Teek and her husband are getting married!

Really? When did they get engaged?

Yesterday. He proposed via the scoreboard at Wembley.

How wonderfully romantic! Who won the game?

I always saw it as just a term for that period between deciding to get married to each other and the actual wedding. No more, no less. So to me, the OP doesn't make much sense. In fact, I would find it impossible to get married and not be engaged (even if for a few minutes).

Now if we're talking about couples who are living together for 10 years, call themselves engaged but have no plans to marry...I've known people like that and that makes zero sense to me. What's the term? Crap or get off the pot.

athon

27th August 2007, 03:50 PM

Well that's news to me. Can anybody British back up Teek's claim? Not to say I was married or engaged in the UK, but here in Australia (which reflects English tradition and culture in many respects) there's no real petty distinction. And I never encountered that feeling with those British friends of mine in the UK (of who I had three different couples get engaged, two of which had simple drinks-at-the-pub celebrations and didn't engage rings. The other couple didn't have any celebration but bought each other a simple token, in the form of a ring for her and a watch for him).

I couldn't imagine somebody saying to me 'we're getting married', and I say, 'so who's your fiancee', only to be told, 'oh we're not engaged'. That seems absolutely absurd to me. Sure, you mightn't use the term fiancee, but then I know of one or two couples who don't like the terms husband and wife, and don't use them (they typically just say 'my partner'). Doesn't mean they don't have a partner referred to in common tradition as a husband or a wife.

I can see all sorts of arguments for and against celebrations and rings at a time of engagement. I can see some people not feel comfortable with the term fiancee. But to say 'we're getting married but aren't engaged' is insanely foreign to me. I associate nothing else with the term other than the fact two people are in the process of arranging a wedding and a marriage.

Athon

DanishDynamite

27th August 2007, 04:03 PM

Something struck me recently.

Danes don't get engaged. We tend to skip that part. Usually, people decide to live together, and if people do agree to get married (often after the kids have arrived), it seems like a good occasion to have a great party, fill up the house with blenders and microwave ovens, and get the tax issues out of the way. The latter matters a lot here.

In this day and age, what's the point of getting engaged? Historically speaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement#The_engagement_period), getting engaged apparently was to ensure that someone could make a fuss, if "legal impediments" were discovered.

Let's face it: Betrothal is ridiculous: What will you do, if your betrothed one breaks up with you? Sue for breach of promise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_Promise)?
Why is betrothal ridiculous?
Today, it seems more like a tradition for the sake of tradition. But what is the point of upholding a tradition, if it doesn't mean anything?
Tradition is often tradition for traditions sake. What exactly is the point, other than tradition, to have a Sankt Hans fire? Or to celebrate Morten's aften? Or to celebrate New Year? Or....?

tkingdoll

27th August 2007, 04:05 PM

I would. I never saw an engagement as requiring a ring, a party or special announcement. In my neck of the woods a conversation would be like:

Teek and her husband are getting married!

Really? When did they get engaged?

Yesterday. He proposed via the scoreboard at Wembley.

How wonderfully romantic! Who won the game?

I always saw it as just a term for that period between deciding to get married to each other and the actual wedding. No more, no less. So to me, the OP doesn't make much sense. In fact, I would find it impossible to get married and not be engaged (even if for a few minutes).

Now if we're talking about couples who are living together for 10 years, call themselves engaged but have no plans to marry...I've known people like that and that makes zero sense to me. What's the term? Crap or get off the pot.

But the very fact that you are aware that couples who are engaged but have no plans to marry proves that 'being engaged' does not mean what some people are claiming it does.

Absolutely anyone you ask, friends or family, will tell you that I was never engaged. I was unmarried, then married. There was a brief period in the middle where we had to make lots of phone calls and sign some stuff. But no-one referred to that as an engagement, and no-one referred to either of us as 'fiance' during that period without being told that we were not any such thing. And this is not uncommon, I assure you. My sister and her boyfriend plan to marry but would laugh if I suggested they are 'engaged'.

I suspect that most couples these days use an engagement as a road test as much as anything. Of my friends who are or were engaged, most didn't start planning the actual wedding until quite some time into the engagement.

I couldn't imagine somebody saying to me 'we're getting married', and I say, 'so who's your fiancee', only to be told, 'oh we're not engaged'. That seems absolutely absurd to me.

This absolutely happened, regardless of whether or not you can imagine it :)

I think it's a cultural shift. I think couples are moving away from traditionalism and all the labels that go with it.

Number Six

27th August 2007, 04:11 PM

However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not. That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?

I think you'll find in the US at least that the engagement ring exists because women want it, not men. You won't hear many men say that in mixed company though because not only does the guy have to buy an engagement ring he has to pretend like he enjoys it, otherwise something hits the fan. I think 99% of guys would be ecstatic if their marriage proposal and engagement ring gift were answered with "I'll marry you on one condition: you take the ring back and get a refund." Maybe in the past it was meant to mark territory but not any more. And I don't think something that can be removed so easily is much of a territory mark anyway.

As far as the engagement period in general goes I think it's serves as a time when people ask themselves "Are you really sure you want to make a permanent commitment?" Of course, it's taken too far sometimes with long engagements and a long time to plan a big wedding, but I think at least some time to really think over what you're getting yourself into is good.

Mrs. Hmmphries

27th August 2007, 04:23 PM

Well Noblecaboose and I are engaged. That means we discussed it, came to the conclusion that it was what we both wanted, and are now going about the paperwork and organising of events. We didn't have an engagement party or anything but we did tell people our intentions.

I'm assuming, however, that 'engaged' means something else in the context of this thread. I mean, I can't foresee people coming to a conclusion that they want to marry and then file the papers and arrange the services that very same moment.

Athon

That is pretty much the exact case with Mr Humphreys and I.
The official date, by the way, is to be 10th November.
Most of our engagement was spent filing paperwork for the proper visa.

ETA: I like my ring very much, but it isn't a diamond.
I'm not a big fan of the diamonds.
They're very expensive for something that looks quite boring, IMO.
I got something pink, cuz I'm a big girl.
The truth is, I don't really own a lot of jewelery, so I'm glad we got a ring.
I absolutely love it, and since it doesn't look like an engagement ring, I'll be able to wear it forever on my right hand anyway.

Does this make me a horrible person?

athon

27th August 2007, 05:23 PM

But the very fact that you are aware that couples who are engaged but have no plans to marry proves that 'being engaged' does not mean what some people are claiming it does.

Plan is different to intent. They mightn't have a celebrant organised, and papers filed, or a date set in their diary, but they fully intend on getting married.

This absolutely happened, regardless of whether or not you can imagine it :)

Oh, knowing you I don't doubt that this occured. We're not discussing so much whether situations such as that have occured, but rather what the common view of the term is. As I said earlier, just because some people avoid terms such as husband and wife doesn't mean that a guy's married partner is not commonly referred to as his wife, in law and in common acceptance.

I think it's a cultural shift. I think couples are moving away from traditionalism and all the labels that go with it.

But 'engagement' is an accepted term following the decision of intent to marry. It's not a legal or even so much a religious state of being (except in some cultures where betrothal is still all the rage). I'd agree that more and more couples aren't doing parties and buying rings, which is a drift away from tradition, but unless the vernacular changed radically to drop the label, the period of time still exists and is typically referred to as an engagement. Abandoning the term doesn't mean you're not engaged - it means you're not openly using the terms that go with it, such as 'fiancee'.

I don't begrudge anybody that, but how you can define that as not being engaged when that's what the term means in the wider community makes no sense to me.

Athon

tkingdoll

27th August 2007, 05:41 PM

I don't begrudge anybody that, but how you can define that as not being engaged when that's what the term means in the wider community makes no sense to me.

I think that's the crux of of our disagreement - I believe the wider British community would consider a couple only engaged if they declare themselves engaged. But that's likely to be biased by my own social circle, which isn't particularly representative of anything but the bohemian 30-something middle classes.

Some of it is down to little semantic differences too - for example many couples 'get engaged' which I would see very clearly as a formal announcement of their betrothal. But is that the same as 'being engaged' - perhaps not. As I said, pre-engagements (eternity rings) are also popular. People plan to get engaged, so to many it must be a formal state, not just an inbetweeny nothingness.

But in the absence of any countrywide 'what is an engagement' study, I guess we'll never know. It really doesn't matter. I and many others will continue to say 'I was never engaged' and some people will continue to insist that we were, even though no traditional aspects of engagement were present.

athon

27th August 2007, 05:42 PM

That is pretty much the exact case with Mr Humphreys and I.
The official date, by the way, is to be 10th November.
Most of our engagement was spent filing paperwork for the proper visa.

That's where Noblecaboose and I are at now. The fact her family is in the US and mine is here means we'll be having a couple of parties, it seems, but we haven't gone to any lengths with the engagement. The papers are completed, celebrant in the process of being organised...it's now a waiting game.

ETA: I like my ring very much, but it isn't a diamond.
I'm not a big fan of the diamonds.
They're very expensive for something that looks quite boring, IMO.
I got something pink, cuz I'm a big girl.
The truth is, I don't really own a lot of jewelery, so I'm glad we got a ring.
I absolutely love it, and since it doesn't look like an engagement ring, I'll be able to wear it forever on my right hand anyway.

Does this make me a horrible person?

According to some, it seems so.

I bought NC an opal pendant because I know she likes opals. I wanted to get her a gift to mark the moment. Gifts are for just that - mementos to say you're loved. I sure as hell don't own her and I'm certainly not under her thumb (just don't let her know that ;)).

Athon

Mrs. Hmmphries

27th August 2007, 06:11 PM

Bah!
The world thinks less of me for having a ring.
I am crushed...or something or nothing.
;)

athon

27th August 2007, 06:16 PM

I think that's the crux of of our disagreement - I believe the wider British community would consider a couple only engaged if they declare themselves engaged. But that's likely to be biased by my own social circle, which isn't particularly representative of anything but the bohemian 30-something middle classes.

I'm pretty much of the same class, albeit here in Australia, and (admittedly suffering from the same alleged bias) feel that if I said 'we're getting married but aren't engaged' I'd get some pretty peculiar looks. My time in the UK was probably too limited to get a good feel on this ground, but nothing in my experience made me think it was any different.

Some of it is down to little semantic differences too - for example many couples 'get engaged' which I would see very clearly as a formal announcement of their betrothal. But is that the same as 'being engaged' - perhaps not.

This is the root of my confusion. I can't see the difference at all. Both are being engaged to marry - one has more formal celebration about it, the other less so. If 'being engaged' had some legal or social connotation, adding an expectancy to behave differently or to perform some ritual, and the couple didn't perform said rituals or behaviours, I might agree that there needs to be a distinction. But there isn't.

As I said, pre-engagements (eternity rings) are also popular. People plan to get engaged, so to many it must be a formal state, not just an inbetweeny nothingness.

Which says, to me, that such a practice makes even less sense. Not saying this doesn't happen, but I've never known anybody do this, so can't even begin to fathom what they're thinking. Then again, people do a lot of silly things that hardly makes any sense.

But in the absence of any countrywide 'what is an engagement' study, I guess we'll never know. It really doesn't matter. I and many others will continue to say 'I was never engaged' and some people will continue to insist that we were, even though no traditional aspects of engagement were present.

The thing is that the distinction seems to matter enough for some people to say they aren't engaged. I'm curious to know if this is based on a real social phenomena that actually exists, or if its a perception of some undefined state of relations that some small groups have.

I might be swayed to think it's an actual phenomena if there were couples who were engaged and had no intention to wed. I don't mean they have no solid plans set down, but they have absolutely no intention of ever being married.

(we can agree to disagree, but this really has me curious).

Athon

sphenisc

27th August 2007, 06:48 PM

My girlfriend and I got engaged in March and eighteen months later we got married, in November.

CFLarsen

28th August 2007, 12:41 AM

Now having said all this, there is no 100% guarantee that she will actually say yes. Perhaps next week I may be less of a romantic. We will have to wait and see.

Why isn't it your girlfriend who proposes to you?

There are people who don't do any of the above, but have to wait a few weeks to get married because of the law, as per my hubby and myself. They don't call themselves engaged, and no-one else does either.

Here in Denmark, there is no such waiting period. It all depends on how quickly you can book the church/city council. You can call the city council this morning to see if they have free time this afternoon.

Why is betrothal ridiculous?

It's the announcement of betrothal that is ridiculous.

Tradition is often tradition for traditions sake. What exactly is the point, other than tradition, to have a Sankt Hans fire? Or to celebrate Morten's aften? Or to celebrate New Year? Or....?

You're right (for once!): These traditions mean nothing to us, except a chance to get together and par-tay!. Ask a Dane the meaning of Pinse (Pentecost), and you will get a blank stare.

I think you'll find in the US at least that the engagement ring exists because women want it, not men. You won't hear many men say that in mixed company though because not only does the guy have to buy an engagement ring he has to pretend like he enjoys it, otherwise something hits the fan. I think 99% of guys would be ecstatic if their marriage proposal and engagement ring gift were answered with "I'll marry you on one condition: you take the ring back and get a refund." Maybe in the past it was meant to mark territory but not any more. And I don't think something that can be removed so easily is much of a territory mark anyway.

But, isn't the ring a very real symbol of the man marking his territory? "She's taken, by me!" "I'm his, look here!"

As far as the engagement period in general goes I think it's serves as a time when people ask themselves "Are you really sure you want to make a permanent commitment?" Of course, it's taken too far sometimes with long engagements and a long time to plan a big wedding, but I think at least some time to really think over what you're getting yourself into is good.

That should be something people living together should consider anyway.

athon

28th August 2007, 12:56 AM

CFLarsen

28th August 2007, 01:45 AM

So, Claus, let me get this straight - in your view, people should discuss getting married, go out that afternoon and sign the paperwork, and at no point in between tell anybody who matters to them what they're doing?

No, I gave an example of how it could be done.

This might sound facetious but any alternative is to announce to people you are intending to marry in the future...which is technically being engaged.

You can call it that. There is, however, a difference between implied engagement and announced engagement.

Oh, and a ring can't be given to mark the occasion.

No, I didn't say anything about that.

And the guy can't ask the girl if she wants to marry him.

No, I asked why it couldn't be the girl who asked the guy. Not that it had to be the girl.

athon

28th August 2007, 01:57 AM

You can call it that. There is, however, a difference between implied engagement and announced engagement.

Most people don't make such a distinction, and I'm yet to see any evidence that this is a widely viewed phenomena. Engagement seems to be accepted as the term for what you call two people who intend to marry. It can either be celebrated or not. But even a non-celebration is an engagement.

No, I didn't say anything about that.

To you, the ring is taken to be a symbol of 'marking one's territory':

But, isn't the ring a very real symbol of the man marking his territory? "She's taken, by me!" "I'm his, look here!"

I assume you feel a man marking a woman as his territory isn't a good thing. Ergo, a man shouldn't give his girlfriend a ring on engagement.

No, I asked why it couldn't be the girl who asked the guy. Not that it had to be the girl.

Who said it couldn't? MWare says he's asking his girlfriend to marry him. Why assume his girlfriend couldn't be the one to do the asking?

Athon

CFLarsen

28th August 2007, 02:20 AM

Most people don't make such a distinction, and I'm yet to see any evidence that this is a widely viewed phenomena.

Has anyone claimed this?

Engagement seems to be accepted as the term for what you call two people who intend to marry. It can either be celebrated or not. But even a non-celebration is an engagement.

If you look at the symbolism attached to formal engagements, you can hardly call an implied intent to marry an "engagement".

Does this mean that even going steady implies an intent to marry, and thus can be called an engagement? What about having sex on the first date?

To you, the ring is taken to be a symbol of 'marking one's territory':

Yes. And?

I assume you feel a man marking a woman as his territory isn't a good thing. Ergo, a man shouldn't give his girlfriend a ring on engagement.

You are quite right: I don't think a man marking a woman as his territory is a good thing.

Who said it couldn't? MWare says he's asking his girlfriend to marry him. Why assume his girlfriend couldn't be the one to do the asking?

I didn't assume. I asked.

Ian Osborne

28th August 2007, 02:21 AM

Who said it couldn't? MWare says he's asking his girlfriend to marry him. Why assume his girlfriend couldn't be the one to do the asking?

Traditionally, the woman shoul only propose to the man on February 29th each leap year (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year#Marriage_proposal)). Somehow, I doubt those who can't wait will be arrested by the tradition police... :D

Jaggy Bunnet

28th August 2007, 02:37 AM

I'm pretty much of the same class, albeit here in Australia, and (admittedly suffering from the same alleged bias) feel that if I said 'we're getting married but aren't engaged' I'd get some pretty peculiar looks. My time in the UK was probably too limited to get a good feel on this ground, but nothing in my experience made me think it was any different.

I completely agree - I have never heard of anyone saying they are making arrangements to marry someone but are not engaged to them.

tkingdoll

28th August 2007, 02:41 AM

Here in Denmark, there is no such waiting period. It all depends on how quickly you can book the church/city council. You can call the city council this morning to see if they have free time this afternoon.

According to some people in this thread, that half-day waiting period is your engagement. I bet millions of Danes will be surprised to hear that...

Also, anybody who read my initial post as me declaring engagement rings are marking territory needs to go back and read it again. Here is what I said:

However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not. That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?

Clearly, I said that it seems to me. That is, I didn't wear a ring my husband does not also wear because it seems like I'd be 'reserved' while he is not. It's old fashioned. I dislike tradition. I am not saying everyone feels that way. However, would anyone like to explain why men don't wear an engagement ring but women do? Because I suspect the history of that particular tradition dates back to a time of less equality.

CFLarsen

28th August 2007, 02:46 AM

According to some people in this thread, that half-day waiting period is your engagement. I bet millions of Danes will be surprised to hear that...

Very much so.

Historically speaking, engagement was a very serious matter here. But today, it means nothing except tradition. There are no legal implications of any kind.

Forlovelse (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlovelse)

tkingdoll

28th August 2007, 02:47 AM

I completely agree - I have never heard of anyone saying they are making arrangements to marry someone but are not engaged to them.

You mean in your social circle. Clearly you have heard of it, as several people in this thread have declared it so. In MY social circle it's pretty commonplace. Many people find engagements belong to the same era as dowries and church weddings.

Jaggy Bunnet

28th August 2007, 03:01 AM

You mean in your social circle. Clearly you have heard of it, as several people in this thread have declared it so. In MY social circle it's pretty commonplace. Many people find engagements belong to the same era as dowries and church weddings.

Several people? I know you have, but I am not sure others have. CFL's posts seem to draw a distinction between formally announcing you are engaged and agreeing to marry one another, but I am not clear on whether he thinks you are only engaged if you do the former rather than the latter.

Having checked several online dictionaries for engagement, all include something along the lines of "a mutual promise or pledge to marry". This seems to suggest that common usage is what Athon and I understand it to be - i.e. that engagement is the period between agreeing to marry and actually getting married. None that I saw had any requirement for a public announcement, an exchange of rings or, in the modern context, any legal implications.

I am not clear on what distinction you are drawing between being engaged and having agreed to marry someone. Can you elaborate on what the difference is (or is it simply a dislike of the word because of its historical connotations)?

Jaggy Bunnet

28th August 2007, 03:04 AM

If you look at the symbolism attached to formal engagements, you can hardly call an implied intent to marry an "engagement".

Does this mean that even going steady implies an intent to marry, and thus can be called an engagement? What about having sex on the first date?

Where do you get "implied" intent to marry from? I was not aware anyone had proposed that as a definition.

The dictionary definition talks of a mutual promise or pledge to marry, which seems entirely in line with what Athon is saying - if you and another person agree to marry each other, then you are engaged whether or not you tell nobody, tell close friends only or put an advert on the front page of every newspaper on the planet.

Jaggy Bunnet

28th August 2007, 03:08 AM

My girlfriend and I got engaged in March and eighteen months later we got married, in November.

March + 18 months = November?

CFLarsen

28th August 2007, 03:12 AM

Where do you get "implied" intent to marry from? I was not aware anyone had proposed that as a definition.

When you announce that you are going to get married.

athon

28th August 2007, 03:24 AM

Has anyone claimed this?

I'm totally lost. For one, you seem to indicate this is the Danish way, and there is something of a subtext to your posts, either intended or not, that this extends beyond Denmark. Many posters here are indicating that the distinction is news to them, making me think that engagement means something different in Denmark than it does in most other countries.

Therefore you might be free to make that distinction with regards to Danish interpretation of the term, but to most an engagement simply refers to a period of time. Nonetheless, this means nothing to you and you storm on ahead, continuing to assume that engagement widely implies something more ceremonial.

If you look at the symbolism attached to formal engagements, you can hardly call an implied intent to marry an "engagement".

*sigh* You're either being deliberately ignorant or stubborn. I'm certain many people still attribute some ceremony to engagements such as parties and gift exchange. I'm not sure what you mean by 'symbolism', though, other than the giving of a ring. Beyond that there's no practice or behaviour that reflects engagements to be anything other than a description of the intent to marry.

However, for many people any such ceremony doesn't exist. It doesn't for me; I had no such party. And I fail to see how giving my girlfriend a pendant as a gift to mark the occasion is any real crime.

Does this mean that even going steady implies an intent to marry, and thus can be called an engagement? What about having sex on the first date?

You're being pathetically ridiculous, Claus.

Yes. And?

Ok, so in your opinion a ring should not be offered? And don't go playing semantics with my original use of the word 'can't' rather than 'should not'. You tend to pick and choose when your understanding of English subtext fails, and I'm not buying it with this one.

I didn't assume. I asked.

Why did you ask?

Athon

athon

28th August 2007, 03:27 AM

When you announce that you are going to get married.

How is that an 'implication'? It's pretty bloody blatant to me.

'So, babe, you want to get married?'
'What are you implying?'
'Do you want to get hitched? Tie the knot?'
'I don't understand the implications of that question?'
'It's a straight forward question. Marry me!'
'Are you implying that you want us to get married?'
'Ugh. Not any more dumbass.'

Athon

athon

28th August 2007, 03:36 AM

Ok, I just did a quick MSN poll. I asked a Dutch friend of mine no living in Australia, a friend back in the UK who lived in Denmark for two years and a friend of mine who spent six years in France. I asked them all:

Could one ask somebody to marry them, get an affirmative response, and not be considered engaged?

All offered various responses. Not one felt it reflected any culture they understood. By no means comprehensive, and it doesn't exclude pockets of social views where engagement means something more than 'intent to marry', however unless somebody produces some evidence I consider myself unmoved on the belief that engagement means nothing more than that.

Athon

Brian Pears

28th August 2007, 03:43 AM

Many people find engagements belong to the same eraas dowries and church weddings.
That certainly seems to reflect the attitude of my social circle. As I've previously mentioned, the only couples I know who've ever claimed to be "engaged" seem to regard it as an end in itself ... a sort of licence to cohabit.

athon

28th August 2007, 03:47 AM

That certainly seems to reflect the attitude of my social circle. As I've previously mentioned, the only couples I know who've ever claimed to be "engaged" seem to regard it as an end in itself ... a sort of licence to cohabit.

Serious question; if they were to tick a box on a legal form that had 'single', 'engaged', 'married', 'divorced', what would they tick?

Additionally, even if they didn't celebrate it with a party, did they tell people they were getting married? Did they deny they were engaged if so?

Athon

Jaggy Bunnet

28th August 2007, 03:49 AM

When you announce that you are going to get married.

What is "implied" about that?

Sounds fairly explicit.

Given you choose that definition, it would appear to clear up your "confusion" about whether "going steady" or "having sex on the first date" amount to engagement.

sphenisc

28th August 2007, 04:04 AM

March + 18 months = November?

Well spotted, however my statement is true.

Jaggy Bunnet

28th August 2007, 04:20 AM

Well spotted, however my statement is true.

I thought there was going to be a clever answer involving getting engaged in one time zone on the last day of March (April in some timezones) and getting married in a different timezone on the first day of November (October in some timezones) which made the 18 months true, provided you picked your timezones carefully.

tkingdoll

28th August 2007, 04:58 AM

I am not clear on what distinction you are drawing between being engaged and having agreed to marry someone. Can you elaborate on what the difference is (or is it simply a dislike of the word because of its historical connotations)?

It could well be the latter, but the definition of a word is how it is used, and in my social circle, and my observation of wider British society, it is used to denote a formal engagement (as I said, almost always complete with a ring, party, etc). People who want to get married right away and have to jump through the legal waiting time hoop to do so don't generally refer to themselves as engaged, and consider themselves never having been so.

Being engaged is a formal thing. Some people skip that formal stage and go straight to the even more formal 'actually getting married' part. I don't see what the problem with those people not regarding themselves as engaged is. I can't think of anything more private, really, than the state of a relationship, so quite why anyone thinks it's OK to declare "you are engaged because some people in society label you so whether you like it or not!" is beyond me.

I'll throw another cat among the pigeons too...I never proposed to my husband and he never proposed to me. Perhaps you might demand that we acknowledge the 3am pizza-eating-on-the-bed conversation in which we mutually agreed that getting married might be the thing to do as 'a proposal', but I do not. What difference does it make to anyone else if we choose to reject traditional labels?

CFLarsen

28th August 2007, 06:41 AM

I'm totally lost. For one, you seem to indicate this is the Danish way, and there is something of a subtext to your posts, either intended or not, that this extends beyond Denmark.

No. You have totally misread what I said. I specifically asked in the OP what the situation was in other countries.

I really have no idea how you can possibly get from my posts that I think it extends beyond Denmark. Could you provide quotes, please? In fact, could you go through this thread and provide quotes in the cases where you repeatedly misunderstood me?

Many posters here are indicating that the distinction is news to them, making me think that engagement means something different in Denmark than it does in most other countries.

Therefore you might be free to make that distinction with regards to Danish interpretation of the term, but to most an engagement simply refers to a period of time. Nonetheless, this means nothing to you and you storm on ahead, continuing to assume that engagement widely implies something more ceremonial.

It isn't something different in Denmark than in other countries. There might be legal implications in other countries, though.

*sigh* You're either being deliberately ignorant or stubborn. I'm certain many people still attribute some ceremony to engagements such as parties and gift exchange. I'm not sure what you mean by 'symbolism', though, other than the giving of a ring. Beyond that there's no practice or behaviour that reflects engagements to be anything other than a description of the intent to marry.

However, for many people any such ceremony doesn't exist. It doesn't for me; I had no such party. And I fail to see how giving my girlfriend a pendant as a gift to mark the occasion is any real crime.

Here is perhaps the biggest implication of officially being engaged: You now proclaim that you are going to get married, and got the ring to show for it. Well, maybe not men.

You're being pathetically ridiculous, Claus.

Why? It's a perfectly valid question.

Ok, so in your opinion a ring should not be offered? And don't go playing semantics with my original use of the word 'can't' rather than 'should not'. You tend to pick and choose when your understanding of English subtext fails, and I'm not buying it with this one.

I think any "marking of one's territory" is distasteful, oppressive and demeaning.

Why did you ask?

Because I was curious.

What is "implied" about that?

Sounds fairly explicit.

Given you choose that definition, it would appear to clear up your "confusion" about whether "going steady" or "having sex on the first date" amount to engagement.

I can't speak for other people.

Mrs. Hmmphries

28th August 2007, 06:48 AM

Why isn't it your girlfriend who proposes to you?

It could be.
At least, I proposed to Mr. Humphreys.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Obsequious

28th August 2007, 07:06 AM

I am a culturally impoverished USian. Could someone please explain for me what exactly constitutes a formal engagement these days and how it differs from an informal one, and how an informal engagement differs from a simple duration of agreement between two people on intent to marry? Or if I missed it, could you please point me to the relevant post? Thanks in advance.

Ysidro

28th August 2007, 07:17 AM

That's where Noblecaboose and I are at now. The fact her family is in the US and mine is here means we'll be having a couple of parties, it seems, but we haven't gone to any lengths with the engagement. The papers are completed, celebrant in the process of being organised...it's now a waiting game.

So you're engaged or just plan to get married? I'm so confused ;)

Seriously congrats to both of you, I didn't know this. Although damn you for taking her off the market. :D

Mrs. Hmmphries

28th August 2007, 07:24 AM

Could someone please explain for me what exactly constitutes a formal engagement these days and how it differs from an informal one, and how an informal engagement differs from a simple duration of agreement between two people on intent to marry?

Probably not.

Jaggy Bunnet

28th August 2007, 07:27 AM

It could well be the latter, but the definition of a word is how it is used, and in my social circle, and my observation of wider British society, it is used to denote a formal engagement (as I said, almost always complete with a ring, party, etc). People who want to get married right away and have to jump through the legal waiting time hoop to do so don't generally refer to themselves as engaged, and consider themselves never having been so.

Being engaged is a formal thing. Some people skip that formal stage and go straight to the even more formal 'actually getting married' part. I don't see what the problem with those people not regarding themselves as engaged is. I can't think of anything more private, really, than the state of a relationship, so quite why anyone thinks it's OK to declare "you are engaged because some people in society label you so whether you like it or not!" is beyond me.

Maybe I am being dense but I still don't understand what distinction you are drawing. Two people agree to get married - by my understanding (and Athon's and all the definitions I can find online) they are engaged (there is a mutual promise or pledge to marry).

I am not clear what else you think is necessary for them to be engaged as opposed to just intending to get married - is it the ring and the party? I don't understand what you mean by it being a "formal thing" - what formality are you referring to?

As for the latter point, words have meanings - it appears pretty clear from a search of online definitions of engagement is the state that exists between two people who have made a mutual promise to marry. I don't see this as any more of a label than describing two people who live together as "cohabiting" or two people who have had a wedding as being "married", it is simply a description of the state of their relationship.

Ysidro

28th August 2007, 07:33 AM

This is a very strange thread. I mean, I can take posts by woos, trolls, and troothers and deal with disagreements. I can understand.

This one. This just messes me up.

One one side, we have folks (including myself) who believe an engagement is the period of time between deciding to get married and actually getting married. There may or may not be certain rituals involved with the engagement depending on the couples' desires.

On the other, we have the belief an engagement is a formalized declaration of intent to marry with specific rituals that may or may not vary by location and culture. Any intent to marry without these specific rituals is just "we're going to get married."

Obviously this is never going to reach a point of consensus. I only say this to admit to myself that anyone (again including myself) engaging in this discussion does so purely for the chance to discuss and argue points.

Now that being said, I feel better with saying the following.

What the heck do you call the period of time between the agreement to marry and the marriage? It seems to be the arguement against using the word "engagement" is really an arguement against the rituals (ring, parties, formal announcements, etc.) instead. And I'm all for argueing against those things, personally. But it seems to me there's a perfectly fine word to describe a period of time that isn't getting used.

Won't you think of the poor word? It's sitting all alone, like a spinster oddly enough, just waiting to be used in certain circles. Look at it, all sad and distraught. Come on, you know you want to give this word a home. A home in a nice vocabulary where it can be loved and cherished.

Or.... maybe not.

Jaggy Bunnet

28th August 2007, 07:35 AM

It could be.
At least, I proposed to Mr. Humphreys.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Who else do you think proposed to Mr Humphreys?

MWare

28th August 2007, 07:37 AM

Excellent idea, thanks.

Custom change requested!

Probably more chance of you becoming less of a romantic in the long term if she says yes!

(Good luck!)

A man can be happy with any woman as long as he does not love her.
- Oscar Wilde

(and thanks)

And as for the comment: "Why doesn't she propose to you?", a few have responded accurately that there is nothing preventing her from doing that, which highlights what a naive question it was to begin with.

Mrs. Hmmphries

28th August 2007, 07:56 AM

Who else do you think proposed to Mr Humphreys?

I'm not sure, but whoever they are I suggest they change their name and go into hiding. I get quite jealous.

Number Six

28th August 2007, 08:10 AM

But, isn't the ring a very real symbol of the man marking his territory? "She's taken, by me!" "I'm his, look here!"

I don't think the engagement ring is a marking of territory at all. Do guys care about the ring? Not in my experience. Now if the guy went to the bother of getting a ring and the woman didn't wear it then the guy might be annoyed but that's only because he went to the bother of getting the ring and there proved to be no point in doing so. But I think if he didn't have to get the ring in the first place he'd be even happier.

The woman is the one always wanting to show off the ring. The guy doesn't care. That's not to say that the guy doesn't care if another guy moves in on his woman, but it's just that an engagement ring is such a lousy way of marking territory anyway. It can be taken off easily.

If we're talking about ways of marking territory I'd say one strong one is when the man insists that the woman take his last name after they marry.

pgwenthold

28th August 2007, 08:21 AM

Woody Boyd: We could get secretly engaged.
Kelly Gaines: Oh yes, Woody. That's a wonderful idea. It'll be our special secret. I'll be in Europe, and you'll be here, and we'll have an unspoken bond across the ocean.
Woody Boyd: Oh, that sounds swell. So you won't date any other guys while you're in Europe?
Kelly Gaines: Well Woody, if I don't date any other guys, then people might suspect that I'm secretly engaged.
Woody Boyd: Yeah, that's right, yeah. So I'll have to do the same thing back here in the States, 'cept of course I'll date women.
Kelly Gaines: Right Woody.
Woody Boyd: Yeah.
Woody Boyd: Hey, wait a minute. You're not already secretly engaged to someone else, are you?
Kelly Gaines: No. But even if I were, I couldn't tell you because it'd be a secret.
Woody Boyd: Boy, I can trust you.

pgwenthold

28th August 2007, 08:22 AM

I don't think the engagement ring is a marking of territory at all. Do guys care about the ring? Not in my experience. Now if the guy went to the bother of getting a ring and the woman didn't wear it then the guy might be annoyed but that's only because he went to the bother of getting the ring and there proved to be no point in doing so. But I think if he didn't have to get the ring in the first place he'd be even happier.
.

I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.

Ryokan

28th August 2007, 08:32 AM

HarryKeogh

28th August 2007, 08:35 AM

I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.

True.

I also figure the ring is the woman's way of showing off to her friends how much her man is willing to spend on a stupid, overpriced rock.

I agee with Number Six. I couldn't care less about the ring. Nothing would make me happier than for my girlfriend to say "I don't want a ring. How about we put the money towards a house instead?" It's been my experience men buy rings becauce women want them and not of any urge to "mark their territory"

Mrs. Hmmphries

28th August 2007, 08:51 AM

I just wanted to let you know that you're breaking hearts here :(

You've got a thing for the preggos, have you?
:p

I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.

In my experience, it doesn't work.
If a guy is going to hit on you, he's going to hit on you, whether you're wearing a ring or not.
I thought I'd get hit on less with Mr Humphreys' name tattooed on me, but you'd be surprised how little of a deterrent that is as well.

sphenisc

28th August 2007, 09:12 AM

Purely in the interests of stirring... are people who have agreed to join in a civil partnership, engaged, "engaged" or some other term?

The Atheist

28th August 2007, 10:21 AM

It's the announcement of betrothal that is ridiculous.

Amazing. Even on such a nothing subject, you feel the need to lie!

The OP:

Let's face it: Betrothal is ridiculous: ...

pgwenthold

28th August 2007, 11:03 AM

In my experience, it doesn't work.
If a guy is going to hit on you, he's going to hit on you, whether you're wearing a ring or not.

1) Creeps are always creeps.
2) It's a lot easier to blow them off by waving a ring in their face if they do come at you, as opposed to simply telling them to buzz off.

The Atheist

28th August 2007, 11:08 AM

1) Creeps are always creeps.

Why is a bloke who chats up an engaged woman automatically a creep?

I can think of several instances where engagements have been broken off because one or other party has found someone better and with whom they've ultimately ended up living happily ever after.

pgwenthold

28th August 2007, 11:24 AM

Why is a bloke who chats up an engaged woman automatically a creep?

Nothing wrong with "chatting up." OTOH, approaching an engaged woman with an intent to try to get her to have a romantic encounter (aka "hitting on") is creep personified.

Sinisterdan

28th August 2007, 11:31 AM

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.
In order to give your relatives enough time to buy some shiny, shiny presents.

...and my wife asked me...

The Atheist

28th August 2007, 12:17 PM

Nothing wrong with "chatting up." OTOH, approaching an engaged woman with an intent to try to get her to have a romantic encounter (aka "hitting on") is creep personified.

If you say so.

I'll note this new meaning, thanks.

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

28th August 2007, 03:49 PM

But it seems to me there's a perfectly fine word to describe a period of time that isn't getting used.

Won't you think of the poor word? It's sitting all alone, like a spinster oddly enough, just waiting to be used in certain circles.

Interregnum (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=interregnum&r=66)?

1. an interval of time between the close of a sovereign's reign and the accession of his or her normal or legitimate successor.

athon

28th August 2007, 04:33 PM

No. You have totally misread what I said. I specifically asked in the OP what the situation was in other countries.

Claus, is it old age that is making you forgetful, or is The Atheist correct and you just can't help but lie and dodge. The evidence is in the OP:

What about your country? Do people (still) get engaged? If so, why?

Nothing on the meaning of the term. Nothing on the sentiments of engagement. The subtext of 'engagement is historical and outdate, do people in your country still do it?' without pondering whether maybe, just maybe, you're amongst a minority who attribute more to the word than others do.

It isn't something different in Denmark than in other countries. There might be legal implications in other countries, though.

Again, not what you said. You said 'Do people (still) get engaged (in your country)?'. Not 'how do people view the meaning of engagement in your country?'. There's a significant difference - in the former you've already assumed that 'engagement' automatically has some celebratory meaning beyond just your neck of the woods.

Here is perhaps the biggest implication of officially being engaged: You now proclaim that you are going to get married, and got the ring to show for it. Well, maybe not men.

NC got an opal pendant. I know a lot of variations on the ring and a lot of couples who get each other a gift. Evidentally, therefore, it isn't about marking your territory. Such a tradition has evolved. Beyond that, many people don't even get gifts. I didn't do any such thing for my first marriage. And you know what? We were still engaged.

Why? It's a perfectly valid question.

No, it's you being a smart arse.

I think any "marking of one's territory" is distasteful, oppressive and demeaning.

True, so do I. Did you want me to wait while you grab some marshmellows for that strawman? As I said, a ring is not automatically a symbol of ownership. True, wearing a ring on the left ring finger is a social code for 'I'm taken'. I know of no man, however, who insists that his girlfriend wears a ring.

Hence it's a female's desire to show she's off the market. Not a male's desire to show she belongs to him.

Funny how traditions change.

Because I was curious.

What invoked the curiosity?

I can't think of anything more private, really, than the state of a relationship, so quite why anyone thinks it's OK to declare "you are engaged because some people in society label you so whether you like it or not!" is beyond me.

Because it's not, in my understanding, a label. It's an accepted term for a state of relationship. Nobody says you have to celebrate it, announce it, or do anything as a result of it. There's no new behaviour (other than assuming you're planning a wedding or to sign paperwork) or connotation you should stick to.

Let's use a similar term, 'divorce'. I can't go around now saying 'I'm no longer married to my ex wife, but we're not divorced, because it's not a label I like to apply to myself'. I don't enjoy the connotations of failure that accompany the term, to be honest (never did like ticking that box on forms), yet it would be downright confusing for me to say I'm not in that state of relationship in relation to my past marriage. I don't have to celebrate it, or announce it freely. But to say 'I'm not divorced' is essentially a contradiction.

Athon

athon

28th August 2007, 04:42 PM

So you're engaged or just plan to get married? I'm so confused ;)

I don't know myself anymore. :) It's a relatively short engagement - we had no party (well, we went out to dinner), and we've pretty much got the first wedding (there's going to be a couple of small parties, it seems, to keep all of the relatives happy) sorted in about a month.

Seriously congrats to both of you, I didn't know this. Although damn you for taking her off the market. :D

Haha, thanks. You have to be quick. Still, the timing was right for us and it all felt right. There's plenty of skepchicks out there somewhere still...I hear.

Athon

CFLarsen

28th August 2007, 11:42 PM

Claus, is it old age that is making you forgetful, or is The Atheist correct and you just can't help but lie and dodge. The evidence is in the OP:

Nothing on the meaning of the term. Nothing on the sentiments of engagement. The subtext of 'engagement is historical and outdate, do people in your country still do it?' without pondering whether maybe, just maybe, you're amongst a minority who attribute more to the word than others do.

Again, not what you said. You said 'Do people (still) get engaged (in your country)?'. Not 'how do people view the meaning of engagement in your country?'. There's a significant difference - in the former you've already assumed that 'engagement' automatically has some celebratory meaning beyond just your neck of the woods.

I have to admit, I have lost count of how many times you have misread me in this thread. I am asking if people get engaged in their countries - if they still do, that is.

That's it. You don't need to read more into it than that. You don't need to overinterpret, or attribute motives to me that I don't have.

NC got an opal pendant. I know a lot of variations on the ring and a lot of couples who get each other a gift. Evidentally, therefore, it isn't about marking your territory. Such a tradition has evolved. Beyond that, many people don't even get gifts. I didn't do any such thing for my first marriage. And you know what? We were still engaged.

Still a visible symbol.

No, it's you being a smart arse.

If you don't want to answer, just say so.

True, so do I. Did you want me to wait while you grab some marshmellows for that strawman?

Oh, no, I wouldn't want to steal your idiomatic blunder.

As I said, a ring is not automatically a symbol of ownership. True, wearing a ring on the left ring finger is a social code for 'I'm taken'. I know of no man, however, who insists that his girlfriend wears a ring.

Hence it's a female's desire to show she's off the market. Not a male's desire to show she belongs to him.

Funny how traditions change.

How can you speak so authoritatively about everyone else? I hope you don't base it on your own MSN poll.

What invoked the curiosity?

A stray thought.

Because it's not, in my understanding, a label.

In my understanding, that's not my quote.

athon

29th August 2007, 01:32 AM

I have to admit, I have lost count of how many times you have misread me in this thread. I am asking if people get engaged in their countries - if they still do, that is.

That's it. You don't need to read more into it than that. You don't need to overinterpret, or attribute motives to me that I don't have.

WTF?? How does one misread something so blatant as the phrase 'Do people still get engaged in your country?'. Seriously Claus, the sad thing is that it's all there to be seen. I don't have to twist anything - the words are as evident and obvious as it gets. You attacked 'engagment' as an act, not the ceremony around it. You ask if people still get engaged, not do people still celebrate it. They are you words, crystal clear.

TA is indeed right - even on a rather nothing subject as this one you feel the need to play stupid games. It's truly pathetic how far you've fallen.

Still a visible symbol.

A symbol of ownership? So every pendant you see on a girl represents ownership? If no, then it's not a very effective symbol. If yes, you're either lying or one sad guy.

How can you speak so authoritatively about everyone else? I hope you don't base it on your own MSN poll.

I say 'I know of no man who insists his girlfriend wears an engagement ring', and I mean just that. You have evidence to the contrary that it is a common practice for men to make their girls to wear a sign of ownership? Or more silly Claus games?

A stray thought.

Then put it back in its yard, because it makes you sound like you've got an issue you've not got the balls to air.

In my understanding, that's not my quote.

No, my apologies. I quoted Teek, and didn't refer it to her post.

Athon

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 01:41 AM

Still a visible symbol.

What complete and utter nonsense.

You claimed your concern was about "marking of territory". Which clearly does not apply here as there is no social convention that women wearing opal pendants are "taken", so your supposed concern is wholly irrelevant. However due to your apparent inability to consider the fact that you can ever make an error, you talk about it being a visible symbol (exactly what is it meant to symbolise?).

I can only assume that you have never given anyone, nor received, a gift due to your concern that this would amount to "marking of territory".

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 01:41 AM

WTF?? How does one misread something so blatant as the phrase 'Do people still get engaged in your country?'. Seriously Claus, the sad thing is that it's all there to be seen. I don't have to twist anything - the words are as evident and obvious as it gets. You attacked 'engagment' as an act, not the ceremony around it. You ask if people still get engaged, not do people still celebrate it. They are you words, crystal clear.

TA is indeed right - even on a rather nothing subject as this one you feel the need to play stupid games. It's truly pathetic how far you've fallen.

I have explained, even in depth, what I mean. You can interpret that as you please.

A symbol of ownership? So every pendant you see on a girl represents ownership? If no, then it's not a very effective symbol. If yes, you're either lying or one sad guy.

No, I don't see every pendant on a girl representing ownership.

I say 'I know of no man who insists his girlfriend wears an engagement ring', and I mean just that. You have evidence to the contrary that it is a common practice for men to make their girls to wear a sign of ownership? Or more silly Claus games?

The burden of evidence is on you.

Then put it back in its yard, because it makes you sound like you've got an issue you've not got the balls to air.

You do not decide what ideas I - or anyone else - float around here. If you don't like to discuss this, then don't.

I thought of this, and it gave me pause to think. Since this is a forum with many nationalities, I asked what people from other countries thought. You can jump in with your thoughts, or you can stay away.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 01:44 AM

What complete and utter nonsense.

You claimed your concern was about "marking of territory". Which clearly does not apply here as there is no social convention that women wearing opal pendants are "taken", so your supposed concern is wholly irrelevant. However due to your apparent inability to consider the fact that you can ever make an error, you talk about it being a visible symbol (exactly what is it meant to symbolise?).

I can only assume that you have never given anyone, nor received, a gift due to your concern that this would amount to "marking of territory".

I have given gifts, and received as well, but I have always been very concerned that the gifts I have given were not seen as markings of territory.

I know: I'm such a bad guy for feeling this way.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 02:08 AM

I have given gifts, and received as well, but I have always been very concerned that the gifts I have given were not seen as markings of territory.

I know: I'm such a bad guy for feeling this way.

You moved on from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols". Did you ensure they were not seen as such?

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 02:12 AM

I am asking if people get engaged in their countries - if they still do, that is.

Yet you appear to be working with a definition of "engaged" that is not common usage and does not appear to tie into those available in online dictionaries.

Perhaps the reason you are being misunderstood is because you have failed to explain what you mean by "engaged" and how this differs from "agree to get married".

If you did that, perhaps people would be able to understand you.

athon

29th August 2007, 02:14 AM

You moved on from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols". Did you ensure they were not seen as such?

Claus is also conveniently ignoring the fact that the of bestowing a ring at an engagement is a tradition women drive rather than men. How this is therefore a 'marking of territory', complete with the connotation of cave-man territorial pissings, is beyond me.

I also fail to see how NC's opal pendant is a symbol of ownership. She looks at it and is reminded of me. Others look at it and think 'nice pendant'. No meaning of ownership (and believe me, Noblecaboose cannot be owned. I don't go for those sorts of girls) has been transferred.

Athon

athon

29th August 2007, 02:21 AM

Yet you appear to be working with a definition of "engaged" that is not common usage and does not appear to tie into those available in online dictionaries.

Perhaps the reason you are being misunderstood is because you have failed to explain what you mean by "engaged" and how this differs from "agree to get married".

If you did that, perhaps people would be able to understand you.

Forget it; tried it, and this was his response -

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.

No explanation. Just an obfuscative 'I know'.

Athon

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 02:22 AM

You moved on from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols".

No, I haven't "moved on" from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols". They aren't much of markings if they aren't visible.

Did you ensure they were not seen as such?

I said I was very concerned that they were not seen as such. What some choose to do is not my problem.

Yet you appear to be working with a definition of "engaged" that is not common usage and does not appear to tie into those available in online dictionaries.

Perhaps the reason you are being misunderstood is because you have failed to explain what you mean by "engaged" and how this differs from "agree to get married".

If you did that, perhaps people would be able to understand you.

But I am not working with a different definition of "engaged". As Teek correctly said in post 103, it is used to denote a formal engagement, with all the accompanying stuff.

Claus is also conveniently ignoring the fact that the of bestowing a ring at an engagement is a tradition women drive rather than men. How this is therefore a 'marking of territory', complete with the connotation of cave-man territorial pissings, is beyond me.

No, I am not "conveniently ignoring" anything. In post 104, I specifically say that I consider any "marking of one's territory" is distasteful, oppressive and demeaning.

You, OTOH, are ignoring this:

I really have no idea how you can possibly get from my posts that I think it extends beyond Denmark. Could you provide quotes, please? In fact, could you go through this thread and provide quotes in the cases where you repeatedly misunderstood me?

I also fail to see how NC's opal pendant is a symbol of ownership. She looks at it and is reminded of me. Others look at it and think 'nice pendant'. No meaning of ownership (and believe me, Noblecaboose cannot be owned. I don't go for those sorts of girls) has been transferred.

Yet, you gave it to her as a symbol of ownership. You and her now belong to each other.

Is that not why you gave it to her?

schplurg

29th August 2007, 02:34 AM

4 pages? Didn't I answer this in the 2nd post of this thread?

As a newlywed (married 7 days now) my engagement was simply the amount of time necessary to plan the wedding ceremony after proposing marriage to my wife-to-be.In my case it took 2 weeks to get the marriage license and arrange the small ceremony. Nobody told me "You are hereby engaged". Being engaged is like being drunk - it is not necessary for someone to tell you that you are drunk...you simply are.

End of thread. I win! ;)

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 02:41 AM

4 pages? Didn't I answer this in the 2nd post of this thread?

In my case it took 2 weeks to get the marriage license and arrange the small ceremony. Nobody told me "You are hereby engaged". Being engaged is like being drunk - it is not necessary for someone to tell you that you are drunk...you simply are.

End of thread. I win! ;)

It seems more a question of why those who don't get engaged, don't think of themselves as being engaged, and make a point out of not being engaged, somehow has to be considered engaged. With all the social dingdong that comes with it.

I have noticed the same happening with people who get married. Some suddenly go out of their way to get everyone else married.

Is it....a virus or something? :)

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 02:44 AM

No, I haven't "moved on" from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols". They aren't much of markings if they aren't visible.

Yes you have, you specifically referred to the pendant as a "visible symbol". Do you ensure that none of the presents you give are "visible symbols"?

If not, why not?

But I am not working with a different definition of "engaged". As Teek correctly said in post 103, it is used to denote a formal engagement, with all the accompanying stuff.

Is your definition of engagement that found in the dictionary?

American Heritage Dictionary entry for engage:

To obtain or contract for the services of; employ: engage a carpenter.
To arrange for the use of; reserve: engage a room. See Synonyms at book.
To pledge or promise, especially to marry.
To attract and hold the attention of; engross: a hobby that engaged her for hours at a time.
To win over or attract: His smile engages everyone he meets.
To draw into; involve: engage a shy person in conversation.
To require the use of; occupy: Studying engages most of my time.
To enter or bring into conflict with: We have engaged the enemy.
To interlock or cause to interlock; mesh: engage the automobile's clutch.
To give or take as security.

If not, then can you please explain what definition you ARE using.

What "formal stuff" is required to turn a "promise to marry" into an "engagement" under the definition you are using?

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 02:47 AM

It seems more a question of why those who don't get engaged, don't think of themselves as being engaged, and make a point out of not being engaged, somehow has to be considered engaged. With all the social dingdong that comes with it.

Because words have meanings. If your height is 7ft, then you are tall. If your weight is 30 stone, then you are obese. If you have made a mutual promise of marriage that remains in place, then you are engaged.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 02:56 AM

Yes you have, you specifically referred to the pendant as a "visible symbol".

And, as I explained: They aren't much of markings if they aren't visible.

Do you ensure that none of the presents you give are "visible symbols"?

If not, why not?

I don't think in particular that my gifts should be visible. The important thing is, does the recipient like it?

Is your definition of engagement that found in the dictionary?

American Heritage Dictionary entry for engage:

To obtain or contract for the services of; employ: engage a carpenter.
To arrange for the use of; reserve: engage a room. See Synonyms at book.
To pledge or promise, especially to marry.
To attract and hold the attention of; engross: a hobby that engaged her for hours at a time.
To win over or attract: His smile engages everyone he meets.
To draw into; involve: engage a shy person in conversation.
To require the use of; occupy: Studying engages most of my time.
To enter or bring into conflict with: We have engaged the enemy.
To interlock or cause to interlock; mesh: engage the automobile's clutch.
To give or take as security.

If not, then can you please explain what definition you ARE using.

What "formal stuff" is required to turn a "promise to marry" into an "engagement" under the definition you are using?

Look at how engagement has been used historically: Always a declaration, always with societal implications, sometimes even with legal implications.

Because words have meanings. If your height is 7ft, then you are tall. If your weight is 30 stone, then you are obese.

Compared to what? Those are relative, not absolute. Can you relatively be engaged?

If you have made a mutual promise of marriage that remains in place, then you are engaged.

Excuse me? That remains in place? So, people are not engaged, until the marriage has actually taken place?

Look, if you want to consider yourself engaged, go ahead. If you don't want to consider yourself engaged, go ahead.

I just don't see this need to pronounce couples who decidedly not want to be engaged as being engaged.

While you are happily engaged, they are happily not engaged. What's it to you?

brodski

29th August 2007, 03:07 AM

Excuse me? That remains in place? So, people are not engaged, until the marriage has actually taken place?

That is not what "remains in place" means in this context. Whilst there is an on going agreement to marry, the engagement remains in place. The engagement remains in place until there is no longer an agreement to marry, either because the marriage has taken place, or it is cancelled.
I hope that you don't consider my attempting to help you understand the English language better as mockery.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 03:10 AM

That is not what "remains in place" means in this context. Whilst there is an on going agreement to marry, the engagement remains in place. The engagement remains in place until there is no longer an agreement to marry, either because the marriage has taken place, or it is cancelled.
I hope that you don't consider my attempting to help you understand the English language better as mockery.

Note that I asked if that was what JB meant.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 03:13 AM

And, as I explained: They aren't much of markings if they aren't visible.

I don't think in particular that my gifts should be visible. The important thing is, does the recipient like it?

Yet you assume that the pendant will be visible and on that basis that it is a marking of territory. Strange how you object when the same logic is applied to your gifts, isn't it?

Look at how engagement has been used historically: Always a declaration, always with societal implications, sometimes even with legal implications.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where you answered the question about whether you are using the dictionary definition, or if not what your definition is.

All I can see is irrelevant waffle.

Compared to what? Those are relative, not absolute. Can you relatively be engaged?

If only we had some way of finding out what words meant, maybe these definitions should be collected and published? Then there would be no confusion, although it would make life more difficult for people for whom "words mean what I want them to mean".

Excuse me? That remains in place? So, people are not engaged, until the marriage has actually taken place?

No, people who made a promise to marry but have since rescinded that promise are no longer engaged. i.e. once the mutual promise to marry no longer exists, the engagement no longer exists. In the same way that people who are married stop being married when they get divorced. This is really not difficult, so I can only assume you are being deliberately obstructive.

Look, if you want to consider yourself engaged, go ahead. If you don't want to consider yourself engaged, go ahead.

I have no more right to define what words mean than you do, how about we go with the widely accepted, dictionary definition that allows people to communicate and understand each other?

I just don't see this need to pronounce couples who decidedly not want to be engaged as being engaged.

For the same reason that people who have been through a wedding ceremony and have not been divorced are referred to as "married". It is the widely accepted term for the state they are in.

While you are happily engaged

That is news to me.

, they are happily not engaged. What's it to you?

If they have made a mutual promise to marry, then they are engaged.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 03:14 AM

athon

29th August 2007, 03:19 AM

But I am not working with a different definition of "engaged". As Teek correctly said in post 103, it is used to denote a formal engagement, with all the accompanying stuff.

So Teek is your source? You have two other people in this thread who concede that in their circle of friends, there is some greater connotation to the term 'engaged'. And neither can describe that said connotation other than it being some vague feeling. I'm prepared to accept that occasionally some social circles attribute something more ceremonial to the term engagement. I can't see, to be honest, how this ceremonial meaning is the full implication of the term. How one can be engaged and not intend to marry is just plain confusing.

Now, where is your evidence that engagement means more than the denotative definition provided? Most people in this thread feel that engagement, while capable of having some ceremony surrounding it, is at its core the period of time between determining to marry and the event itself.

No, I am not "conveniently ignoring" anything. In post 104, I specifically say that I consider any "marking of one's territory" is distasteful, oppressive and demeaning.

You're being either ignorant or dishonest. Either way, it's a straw man. I agree that 'marking one's territory' has an air of distaste about it. It's the question of whether anybody other than you sees buying a gift for somebody, such as a pendant, is seen as 'marking one's territory'. You can keep barking up that tree if you want, but it makes you look foolish.

You, OTOH, are ignoring this:

I really have no idea how you can possibly get from my posts that I think it extends beyond Denmark. Could you provide quotes, please? In fact, could you go through this thread and provide quotes in the cases where you repeatedly misunderstood me?

Again, your opening post assumes we share the same definition of engagement as you imply you have in Denmark. That's been shown to be false. The entire premise of your argument is based on us sharing that view of engagement. Not the parties or ring-exchange, but the fact that engagement itself has added meaning. I even have my doubts that it is as pervasive in Denmark as you suggest. But I'll let that dog sleep.

Yet, you gave it to her as a symbol of ownership. You and her now belong to each other.

I 'own' her? Noblecaboose is having a laugh, and says 'she resents that' and that 'it's insulting to see it that way'. Do you think she would accept a pendant as a sign of 'ownership'?

Is that not why you gave it to her?

No. I gave it to her because she likes opals, it's pretty, and it makes her happy to think I was thinking of her. And I agree with her - to turn a gift which I bought because it's something that makes her happy into a symbolism of slavery is bloody insulting.

You really don't get out much, do you?

Look at how engagement has been used historically: Always a declaration, always with societal implications, sometimes even with legal implications.

Historically speaking in some societies, being divorced meant you couldn't marry again, especially if you're a female. According to you is divorce therefore stupid? Or the hisorical implications surrounding it?

Engagement is a defined period between deciding to marry and marrying. Just like divorcing is a defined end to a marriage. I can't end my marriage and say 'I'm not divorced' without raising confusion. In most societies, I can't say 'We're getting married but we're not engaged' without also raising confusion.

I just don't see this need to pronounce couples who decidedly not want to be engaged as being engaged.

While you are happily engaged, they are happily not engaged. What's it to you?

A funny little thing called 'language', is why. Useful for communication, and it 's more useful if you don't invent your own slant on it without reason.

Athon

brodski

29th August 2007, 03:19 AM

Note that I asked if that was what JB meant.

No, you didn’t. First you asked to be excused, I apologise for not addressing that point, secondly asked if people where not engaged until the marriage takes place.
To ask that question clearly shows that you did not understand the language which Jaggy had used, in the context of the conversation you were having. I hoped to help clear up your misunderstanding.
If you are having trouble remembering what you actually asked, I helpful included a quote in my response to you.

brodski

29th August 2007, 03:25 AM

Don't worry, he knew very well what was meant. Pretending to misunderstand posts to avoid dealing with issues is not uncommon behaviour.

I was under that impression too, but when I called him on this recently he accuse me of mocking him for his imperfect understanding of English, which was “low” behaviour (I happened to mention that I after his insistence that drumstick is, in all contexts, an acceptable synonym for leg, that perhaps I wasn’t going to take his word on what the real meaning of English words were). I have decided to take him at his word and assume that he is not being disingenuous, he is just genuinely confused as to the meaning of English words, and how their meanings can change with context.
I am puzzled, however, as to why he seems to be so resistant to being educated on the matter.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 03:26 AM

Yet you assume that the pendant will be visible and on that basis that it is a marking of territory. Strange how you object when the same logic is applied to your gifts, isn't it?

We were talking about visible pendants.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where you answered the question about whether you are using the dictionary definition, or if not what your definition is.

All I can see is irrelevant waffle.

It is hardly "irrelevant waffle" to point to how engagement has been seen.

If only we had some way of finding out what words meant, maybe these definitions should be collected and published? Then there would be no confusion, although it would make life more difficult for people for whom "words mean what I want them to mean".

That doesn't answer the question.

No, people who made a promise to marry but have since rescinded that promise are no longer engaged. i.e. once the mutual promise to marry no longer exists, the engagement no longer exists. In the same way that people who are married stop being married when they get divorced. This is really not difficult, so I can only assume you are being deliberately obstructive.

Not at all. I was asking. I am sorry if asking automatically means people are being deliberately obstructive.

I have no more right to define what words mean than you do, how about we go with the widely accepted, dictionary definition that allows people to communicate and understand each other?

And yet, you insist on ignoring how engagement is viewed historically? If you want the whole story, go with the whole story.

For the same reason that people who have been through a wedding ceremony and have not been divorced are referred to as "married". It is the widely accepted term for the state they are in.

But married couples have gone through a ceremony which they both agreed to. Marriage is also a legal matter.

That is news to me.

In English, there are two forms of "you". Personal "you" and general "you".

Contrary to you, I do not assume that you are being "deliberately obstructive".

If they have made a mutual promise to marry, then they are engaged.

I asked what's it to you. As in you, personally.

Don't worry, he knew very well what was meant. Pretending to misunderstand posts to avoid dealing with issues is not uncommon behaviour.

Why is this matter so important to you that you have to attribute every conceivable sinister motive to me?

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 03:35 AM

NC got an opal pendant. I know a lot of variations on the ring and a lot of couples who get each other a gift. Evidentally, therefore, it isn't about marking your territory. Such a tradition has evolved. Beyond that, many people don't even get gifts. I didn't do any such thing for my first marriage. And you know what? We were still engaged.

Still a visible symbol.

We were talking about visible pendants.

You were the first person to use the word visible - the exchange is reproduced above so that you don't "misunderstand".

As I said "you assume that the pendant will be visible and on that basis that it is a marking of territory".

The only person who specified that the pendant was visible was you when you described it as a "visible symbol".

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 03:38 AM

You were the first person to use the word visible - the exchange is reproduced above so that you don't "misunderstand".

As I said "you assume that the pendant will be visible and on that basis that it is a marking of territory".

The only person who specified that the pendant was visible was you when you described it as a "visible symbol".

So? Does that mean I was the only one talking about visible symbols?

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 03:39 AM

And yet, you insist on ignoring how engagement is viewed historically? If you want the whole story, go with the whole story.

I have asked you several times to define the term "engaged" as you are using it - you have not done so. Why?

But married couples have gone through a ceremony which they both agreed to.

And engaged couples have made a promise to each other which they both agreed to.

Marriage is also a legal matter.

So what? Unless you mean that the definition of "engaged" that you are using also has some legal basis this comment is irrelevant. If you would post the definition that would be helpful.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 03:45 AM

So? Does that mean I was the only one talking about visible symbols?

Firstly, your claim was that "We were talking about visible pendants." It is potentially misleading to change the wording to refer to symbols rather than pendants - not that I would suggest for a moment you did that on purpose.

Now that misunderstanding is cleared up, it is perfectly clear that when you made the post "Still a visible symbol", this was based only on your assumption that the pendant was visible and that there was nothing in the preceeding posts to indicate that.

So when I said "you assume that the pendant will be visible and on that basis that it is a marking of territory", that was entirely correct.

athon

29th August 2007, 03:50 AM

And yet, you insist on ignoring how engagement is viewed historically? If you want the whole story, go with the whole story.

And language can't evolve?

Many things have changed historically. Marriage itself has evolved in tradition, connotation and form. And it will continue to do so, in spite of your protesting. Engagement no longer comes with baggage - across cultures it seems to simply mean 'intends to marry'. Flavour it, dress it up, add and remove traditions...beyond all that, fundamentally, the term means 'intends to marry'. Nobody says you can't have more meaning. But to assume the term carries that meaning beyond history is ridiculous.

Brides still wear white to symbolise virginity. I don't think that's a common meaning anymore, and many brides probably don't even consider it. The veil also had historical meaning. Now neither has that meaning - it is carried on with a view of being traditional, with the meaning essentially ignored or forgotten entirely.

Engagement no longer has meanings in most social circles. It has been reduced to a mere word denoting an intention.

So your 'historically speaking' definition has zero merit to it. Give it up. Tell us what you think 'engagement' means today. The unfortunate thing is that you've persisted in this game for four pages, and the meaning accepted by most people has already been described. Anything you've got to add will either contradict that, risking you looking ignorant, or agree with it, making you dishonest.

Athon

athon

29th August 2007, 03:53 AM

Firstly, your claim was that "We were talking about visible pendants." It is potentially misleading to change the wording to refer to symbols rather than pendants - not that I would suggest for a moment you did that on purpose.

Now that misunderstanding is cleared up, it is perfectly clear that when you made the post "Still a visible symbol", this was based only on your assumption that the pendant was visible and that there was nothing in the preceeding posts to indicate that.

So when I said "you assume that the pendant will be visible and on that basis that it is a marking of territory", that was entirely correct.

To be fair, it remains an insulting comment regardless of visibility. It means, a) that my gift was given with an intention to mark NC as 'mine', and b) that whenever one sees jewellery such as a pendant on a girl, that person is described as taken.

So I really have to ask, Claus; when you see a girl wearing jewellery, do you automatically assume somebody 'owns' her?

Athon

Professor Yaffle

29th August 2007, 03:59 AM

Announcing your intention to marry (even if you are just announcing it to eachother...) IS getting engaged. You can't announce that you are getting married and not be engaged, because that is what being engaged means. It seems you are asking more why some people who get engaged partake in the rituals and customs associated with announcing that you are going to get married. If you had stated this a little more clearly, you could have avoided the above pointless argument.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 04:08 AM

I have asked you several times to define the term "engaged" as you are using it - you have not done so. Why?

If you take the time to read the thread, you will find that I have pointed several times to definitions, usage and such.

And engaged couples have made a promise to each other which they both agreed to.

But there is none of the legal implications, nor ceremony, that marriage has.

So what? Unless you mean that the definition of "engaged" that you are using also has some legal basis this comment is irrelevant. If you would post the definition that would be helpful.

Again, engagement does not carry the legal implications that marriage does.

You forgot these:

What is it to you, personally, if some people don't want to get engaged, and don't want to be seen as engaged?

Why is this matter so important to you that you have to attribute every conceivable sinister motive to me?

Firstly, your claim was that "We were talking about visible pendants." It is potentially misleading to change the wording to refer to symbols rather than pendants - not that I would suggest for a moment you did that on purpose.

Now that misunderstanding is cleared up, it is perfectly clear that when you made the post "Still a visible symbol", this was based only on your assumption that the pendant was visible and that there was nothing in the preceeding posts to indicate that.

So when I said "you assume that the pendant will be visible and on that basis that it is a marking of territory", that was entirely correct.

Whoa...was I the only one talking about visible symbols?

So Teek is your source? You have two other people in this thread who concede that in their circle of friends, there is some greater connotation to the term 'engaged'. And neither can describe that said connotation other than it being some vague feeling. I'm prepared to accept that occasionally some social circles attribute something more ceremonial to the term engagement. I can't see, to be honest, how this ceremonial meaning is the full implication of the term. How one can be engaged and not intend to marry is just plain confusing.

It may be confusing to you, but it isn't to them. Why are you so intent on them being engaged?

Now, where is your evidence that engagement means more than the denotative definition provided? Most people in this thread feel that engagement, while capable of having some ceremony surrounding it, is at its core the period of time between determining to marry and the event itself.

I see you have not bothered to click on the link I gave, where usage and implication of engagement was described.

You're being either ignorant or dishonest. Either way, it's a straw man. I agree that 'marking one's territory' has an air of distaste about it. It's the question of whether anybody other than you sees buying a gift for somebody, such as a pendant, is seen as 'marking one's territory'. You can keep barking up that tree if you want, but it makes you look foolish.

You may think that. But it doesn't change the fact that I did specifically say that I consider any "marking of one's territory" is distasteful, oppressive and demeaning. So, you were wrong to say otherwise.

Again, your opening post assumes we share the same definition of engagement as you imply you have in Denmark. That's been shown to be false. The entire premise of your argument is based on us sharing that view of engagement. Not the parties or ring-exchange, but the fact that engagement itself has added meaning. I even have my doubts that it is as pervasive in Denmark as you suggest. But I'll let that dog sleep.

No, it has not been shown to be false. I have not seen any evidence that engagement in Denmark means something else in other places, e.g. UK or the US. Danes just don't do it, that's all.

I 'own' her? Noblecaboose is having a laugh, and says 'she resents that' and that 'it's insulting to see it that way'. Do you think she would accept a pendant as a sign of 'ownership'?

What matters is what reasons you had for giving her a visible symbol.

No. I gave it to her because she likes opals, it's pretty, and it makes her happy to think I was thinking of her. And I agree with her - to turn a gift which I bought because it's something that makes her happy into a symbolism of slavery is bloody insulting.

You really don't get out much, do you?

But those were not the only reasons why you gave it to her.

Historically speaking in some societies, being divorced meant you couldn't marry again, especially if you're a female. According to you is divorce therefore stupid? Or the hisorical implications surrounding it?

Engagement is a defined period between deciding to marry and marrying. Just like divorcing is a defined end to a marriage. I can't end my marriage and say 'I'm not divorced' without raising confusion. In most societies, I can't say 'We're getting married but we're not engaged' without also raising confusion.

Not as long as people like yourself find it imperative to declare people engaged, even though they don't want to be, they don't want to be seen as being such, and that there are no legal implications of being engaged.

In fact, you are imposing your own social values on them. Why is that so important to you that they have to be pronounced engaged?

A funny little thing called 'language', is why. Useful for communication, and it 's more useful if you don't invent your own slant on it without reason.

No, it's not just "language". It is also very much about social values. Somehow, you think that yours trump theirs.

No, you didn’t. First you asked to be excused, I apologise for not addressing that point, secondly asked if people where not engaged until the marriage takes place.
To ask that question clearly shows that you did not understand the language which Jaggy had used, in the context of the conversation you were having. I hoped to help clear up your misunderstanding.
If you are having trouble remembering what you actually asked, I helpful included a quote in my response to you.

It wouldn't matter much, since you are determined to tell me what I meant, even though I didn't.

brodski

29th August 2007, 04:12 AM

It wouldn't matter much, since you are determined to tell me what I meant, even though I didn't.

Now, considering your performance where you insisted that you had special knowledge of my motives for making a statement, despite me telling you that you where totally wrong about my motives, and explaining my real motives in detail, I find that very rich.
Regardless, I wasn’t trying to tell you what you meant I was pointing out what you said. The two things are not necessarily the same.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 04:19 AM

And language can't evolve?

Of course it can, and has.

Many things have changed historically. Marriage itself has evolved in tradition, connotation and form. And it will continue to do so, in spite of your protesting.

Where have I "protested" against marriage evolving?

Engagement no longer comes with baggage - across cultures it seems to simply mean 'intends to marry'. Flavour it, dress it up, add and remove traditions...beyond all that, fundamentally, the term means 'intends to marry'. Nobody says you can't have more meaning. But to assume the term carries that meaning beyond history is ridiculous.

When the term no longer comes with baggage, has it not lost all its original meaning? However, engagement does come with some baggage: While no longer a legal issue, there is still a lot of the social baggage.

Brides still wear white to symbolise virginity. I don't think that's a common meaning anymore, and many brides probably don't even consider it. The veil also had historical meaning. Now neither has that meaning - it is carried on with a view of being traditional, with the meaning essentially ignored or forgotten entirely.

You touch on the essential here: While white being a symbol of virginity is ignored, it isn't forgotten. We all know what white means at a wedding (woe unto the female guest who shows up in white), we just don't care anymore.

Engagement no longer has meanings in most social circles. It has been reduced to a mere word denoting an intention.

If expressed, yes. Otherwise, it is one social standard being imposed on another.

So your 'historically speaking' definition has zero merit to it. Give it up. Tell us what you think 'engagement' means today. The unfortunate thing is that you've persisted in this game for four pages, and the meaning accepted by most people has already been described. Anything you've got to add will either contradict that, risking you looking ignorant, or agree with it, making you dishonest.

I disagree: There are still a lot of historical meanings to engagement - the ring(s), the ceremony, the proclaiming of being engaged.

To be fair, it remains an insulting comment regardless of visibility. It means, a) that my gift was given with an intention to mark NC as 'mine', and b) that whenever one sees jewellery such as a pendant on a girl, that person is described as taken.

So I really have to ask, Claus; when you see a girl wearing jewellery, do you automatically assume somebody 'owns' her?

That depends on what jewellery it is.

For the third time:

I really have no idea how you can possibly get from my posts that I think it extends beyond Denmark. Could you provide quotes, please? In fact, could you go through this thread and provide quotes in the cases where you repeatedly misunderstood me?

athon

29th August 2007, 04:28 AM

If you take the time to read the thread, you will find that I have pointed several times to definitions, usage and such.

Then you wouldn't mind repeating them. You've had several requests now, meaning we simply can't find them.

Whoa...was I the only one talking about visible symbols?

You introduced the word 'visible'. Nobody else brought that descriptor into it.

It may be confusing to you, but it isn't to them. Why are you so intent on them being engaged?

This is so sad: because the word 'engaged' means 'intent to marry'. If you intend to marry, you are engaged. End of story.

I see you have not bothered to click on the link I gave, where usage and implication of engagement was described.

Historical implications of the term, sure. I covered that. If somebody says they're engaged today, I don't assume anything other than the fact they are working on getting married. As I said, meanings evolve.

You may think that. But it doesn't change the fact that I did specifically say that I consider any "marking of one's territory" is distasteful, oppressive and demeaning. So, you were wrong to say otherwise.

I never said otherwise. I said that offering a gift is not equivalent to marking one's territory. Try not to lie again, Claus. Your argument won't survive much more of it.

No, it has not been shown to be false. I have not seen any evidence that engagement in Denmark means something else in other places, e.g. UK or the US. Danes just don't do it, that's all.

The fact that most people on this thread have given a definition which conflicts with yours is evidence enough to discredit it. Face it; the one universal denotation to engagement is that it implies getting married. It would be honest for those who don't like the term to admit that they prefer not to use it. I have no issue with that. To say they're not engaged is a direct contradiction of its meaning, however, akin to two people who are no longer living together and have intention to work again at a marriage deny they are separated or divorced.

But those were not the only reasons why you gave it to her.

Excuse me for losing it for a second, but who the **** are you to attribute intentions to my actions? Yes; the only reasons for my purchasing her a gift for giving on the night of our engagement was that I wanted to give her something nice that would make her happy.

Again, do you see all jewellery on a girl as signs of ownership?

Not as long as people like yourself find it imperative to declare people engaged, even though they don't want to be, they don't want to be seen as being such, and that there are no legal implications of being engaged.

Language doesn't change to suit the user of it, Claus. It is a social text. I can't change it, you can't change it - it can only evolve with time. People can refuse to use the term, which is fine by me. But to say they are intending to be married and are not engaged contradicts the definition.

In fact, you are imposing your own social values on them. Why is that so important to you that they have to be pronounced engaged?

Social values? What values? That they intend to marry? That's not a value - it's a fact. Engagement = intension to marry. It doesn't get simpler.

No, it's not just "language". It is also very much about social values. Somehow, you think that yours trump theirs.[

Claus, values have nothing to do with the denotative meaning of 'engagement'. You really don't know what a value is, do you? By your use of the term I can only come to that conclusion.

It wouldn't matter much, since you are determined to tell me what I meant, even though I didn't.

So you didn't mean that engagement carries a ceremonial, symbolic-heavy connotation outside of Denmark? You didn't mean that engagement isn't the defined period between deciding to get married and marriage itself? You didn't mean that offering a gift, such as a pendant or a ring, is a man imposing a symbol of ownership on his girlfriend?

Athon

athon

29th August 2007, 04:43 AM

Where have I "protested" against marriage evolving?

Don't play daft. I'm discussing engagement evolving as a term.

When the term no longer comes with baggage, has it not lost all its original meaning?

No.

However, engagement does come with some baggage: While no longer a legal issue, there is still a lot of the social baggage.

Not always.

You touch on the essential here: While white being a symbol of virginity is ignored, it isn't forgotten. We all know what white means at a wedding (woe unto the female guest who shows up in white), we just don't care anymore.

And when the meaning is no longer known? Why do women carry a bouquet of flowers? Why a veil? Why is there a best man, and why is he called that? I honestly don't know, although I'm sure I could look it up. Most people, I venture, wouldn't know where they come from, either. Yet they still do them.

Practice does not automatically carry connotation and baggage. The term 'engagement' isn't even the more traditional term. Nobody uses 'betrothed' anymore. The term has evolved.

If expressed, yes. Otherwise, it is one social standard being imposed on another.

So, again, do you feel that a couple should keep their intentions secret until the day? If not, then it's an expression of intent to marry. Ergo, engagement.

I disagree: There are still a lot of historical meanings to engagement - the ring(s), the ceremony, the proclaiming of being engaged.

Rings? A lot of people don't exchange gifts and are still engaged. Ceremony? See rings. Proclamation? Well, again, unless you want to keep the intention secret, I can't see how you can't inform people of the intention.

That depends on what jewellery it is.

Seriously? You see a girl wearing a pendant, and you automatically think a guy 'owns' her?

I really have no idea how you can possibly get from my posts that I think it extends beyond Denmark. Could you provide quotes, please? In fact, could you go through this thread and provide quotes in the cases where you repeatedly misunderstood me?

Ok, fine. You caught me out. I misunderstood. I now concede that in spite of what people have said, you evidentally don't know one way or another whether engagement has additional meaning and implication outside of Denmark. The fact that your opening post itself suggested that you felt otherwise is my mistake.

I now see that you don't know how others perceive engagement. So, consider yourself now informed - in other countries, engagement does not automatically carry connotation of any sort, and with few exceptions means literally 'intends on marrying'.

Wow, that was easy. I should have listened earlier.

Athon

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 05:45 AM

Then you wouldn't mind repeating them. You've had several requests now, meaning we simply can't find them.

You in particular have, but rejected them out of hand. That is, of course, your perogative, but it doesn't mean that I haven't provided them.

You introduced the word 'visible'. Nobody else brought that descriptor into it.

That wasn't the question: Was I the only one talking about visible symbols? No, I wasn't.

This is so sad: because the word 'engaged' means 'intent to marry'. If you intend to marry, you are engaged. End of story.

Is it? Most people intend to marry, even if they haven't a significant other. They aren't engaged.

Historical implications of the term, sure. I covered that. If somebody says they're engaged today, I don't assume anything other than the fact they are working on getting married. As I said, meanings evolve.

That is your perception of what "engaged" means. You cannot, however, ignore that other people put much more into it.

I never said otherwise. I said that offering a gift is not equivalent to marking one's territory. Try not to lie again, Claus. Your argument won't survive much more of it.

I do not lie. You said:

Claus is also conveniently ignoring the fact that the of bestowing a ring at an engagement is a tradition women drive rather than men. How this is therefore a 'marking of territory', complete with the connotation of cave-man territorial pissings, is beyond me.

I did not ignore that, nor did I say anything about "marking of territory" was solely masculine.

The fact that most people on this thread have given a definition which conflicts with yours is evidence enough to discredit it. Face it; the one universal denotation to engagement is that it implies getting married. It would be honest for those who don't like the term to admit that they prefer not to use it. I have no issue with that. To say they're not engaged is a direct contradiction of its meaning, however, akin to two people who are no longer living together and have intention to work again at a marriage deny they are separated or divorced.

But that's precisely what people who don't like the term do: They prefer not to use it about themselves.

Excuse me for losing it for a second, but who the **** are you to attribute intentions to my actions? Yes; the only reasons for my purchasing her a gift for giving on the night of our engagement was that I wanted to give her something nice that would make her happy.

Fortunately, I don't need to attribute intentions to your actions. I can simply go with what you said:

Myself and NC haven't had (and won't have) an engagement party. I bought her a small opal pendant as a gift, not because tradition demanded it but rather I felt I wanted to mark the moment with something special.

It meant a little more than just to make her happy. You wanted to mark the moment.

You follow with this:

However, we are engaged in every sense of the word.

In whose sense? Your own, or those who attach a lot more meaning and ceremony to "engagement"?

Again, do you see all jewellery on a girl as signs of ownership?

I did answer that: It depends on the jewellery. So no, not "all".

Language doesn't change to suit the user of it, Claus. It is a social text. I can't change it, you can't change it - it can only evolve with time. People can refuse to use the term, which is fine by me. But to say they are intending to be married and are not engaged contradicts the definition.
...
Social values? What values? That they intend to marry? That's not a value - it's a fact. Engagement = intension to marry. It doesn't get simpler.

But you are imposing your own values of what "engagement" is.

Claus, values have nothing to do with the denotative meaning of 'engagement'. You really don't know what a value is, do you? By your use of the term I can only come to that conclusion.

You cannot possibly ignore that some people have some values about what constitutes "engagement", while others have other values. That's what this thread is all about!

So you didn't mean that engagement carries a ceremonial, symbolic-heavy connotation outside of Denmark? You didn't mean that engagement isn't the defined period between deciding to get married and marriage itself? You didn't mean that offering a gift, such as a pendant or a ring, is a man imposing a symbol of ownership on his girlfriend?

I asked if other countries had the same situation as Denmark does.

Don't play daft. I'm discussing engagement evolving as a term.

I'm not playing daft, I go with what you say:

Marriage itself has evolved in tradition, connotation and form. And it will continue to do so, in spite of your protesting.

I have not "protested" the evolving of marriage in any way, shape or form. Nor, for that matter, have I "protested" the evolving of engagement.

No.

Not always.

Why not? In which cases?

And when the meaning is no longer known? Why do women carry a bouquet of flowers? Why a veil? Why is there a best man, and why is he called that? I honestly don't know, although I'm sure I could look it up. Most people, I venture, wouldn't know where they come from, either. Yet they still do them.

Sure, because some meanings are forgotten. I pointed to Pentecost earlier as a custom that is a mystery to most Danes, yet we still celebrate it.

Practice does not automatically carry connotation and baggage. The term 'engagement' isn't even the more traditional term. Nobody uses 'betrothed' anymore. The term has evolved.

It sure has.

So, again, do you feel that a couple should keep their intentions secret until the day? If not, then it's an expression of intent to marry. Ergo, engagement.

That's your simplified version, yes. But then, you ignore the social baggage that comes with it for other people.

Rings? A lot of people don't exchange gifts and are still engaged. Ceremony? See rings. Proclamation? Well, again, unless you want to keep the intention secret, I can't see how you can't inform people of the intention.

There is a difference between accouncing your marriage and announcing your engagement.

Seriously? You see a girl wearing a pendant, and you automatically think a guy 'owns' her?

No, read what I said. It depends on the jewellery.

Ok, fine. You caught me out. I misunderstood. I now concede that in spite of what people have said, you evidentally don't know one way or another whether engagement has additional meaning and implication outside of Denmark. The fact that your opening post itself suggested that you felt otherwise is my mistake.

I now see that you don't know how others perceive engagement. So, consider yourself now informed - in other countries, engagement does not automatically carry connotation of any sort, and with few exceptions means literally 'intends on marrying'.

Wow, that was easy. I should have listened earlier.

Athon

That is not what I meant, and you know it. You have misunderstood me so many times in this thread, that I think it is time you explain what parts of which posts of mine made you come to such erroneously conclusions. I have asked you to do this before, but you have refused, and do so again.

You are clearly not interested in what I say, but what you want me to say.

I agree with what Teek said in post #103: It is a private matter, and it is no business of yours or anyone else to slap a sticker on people that means something to you, but not to them, just because you feel it is appropriate.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 05:46 AM

If you take the time to read the thread, you will find that I have pointed several times to definitions, usage and such.

Excellent. Then it will be a very simple matter for you to post the definition again.

If you are feeling in a helpful mood you could even explain how it differs to the dictionary definition of "To pledge or promise, especially to marry".

But there is none of the legal implications, nor ceremony, that marriage has.

Again, engagement does not carry the legal implications that marriage does.

Twice you make reference to legal implications so I can only ask again "So what?"

Unless you mean that the definition of "engaged" that you are using also has some legal basis this comment is irrelevant.

Whoa...was I the only one talking about visible symbols?

Firstly, your claim was that "We were talking about visible pendants." It is potentially misleading to change the wording to refer to symbols rather than pendants - this is the second time you have done this, if you continue to do so I may have to revise my opinion on whether this is accidental or not.

Yes, you were the only one talking about visible pendants.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 05:51 AM

That wasn't the question: Was I the only one talking about visible symbols? No, I wasn't.

For the third time, your claim was that "We were talking about visible pendants." It is potentially misleading to change the wording to refer to symbols rather than pendants.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that you keep making the same mistake by accident when it has been pointed out to you so often. If you were to do so again, I would have to conclude you were doing it on purpose, possibly because you are unable to defend your original claim.

Sinisterdan

29th August 2007, 05:53 AM

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 06:02 AM

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 06:02 AM

Excellent. Then it will be a very simple matter for you to post the definition again.

If you are feeling in a helpful mood you could even explain how it differs to the dictionary definition of "To pledge or promise, especially to marry".

I refer you, once again, to the historical explanation.

Twice you make reference to legal implications so I can only ask again "So what?"

Unless you mean that the definition of "engaged" that you are using also has some legal basis this comment is irrelevant.

I am talking about the differences between marriage and engagement.

Firstly, your claim was that "We were talking about visible pendants." It is potentially misleading to change the wording to refer to symbols rather than pendants - this is the second time you have done this, if you continue to do so I may have to revise my opinion on whether this is accidental or not.

Yes, you were the only one talking about visible pendants.

Wrong:

So every pendant you see on a girl represents ownership? If no, then it's not a very effective symbol. If yes, you're either lying or one sad guy.

For the third time, your claim was that "We were talking about visible pendants." It is potentially misleading to change the wording to refer to symbols rather than pendants.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that you keep making the same mistake by accident when it has been pointed out to you so often. If you were to do so again, I would have to conclude you were doing it on purpose, possibly because you are unable to defend your original claim.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that you have read this thread.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 06:10 AM

The depth of the examination presented here greatly exceeds that warrented by the topic.

If you decide to get married, but have not yet completed the act itself, you are engaged.Public or private, you are engaged. If you decide that you want to get married to the girl that you met at the bus stop and the JoP is only 23 steps away, for those 23 steps, you are engaged.

That poses a problem: Namely, with a social convention that is impossible to escape. Even though a couple makes a point out of not wanting to go through the whole "engagement" hullabaloo, they can't, because no matter what they do, people will see them as "engaged", with the various social values that come with different groups of people.

A social convention is something we should all be aware of, especially how it influences people's lives and choices.

Inescapable social conventions is something we should be very aware of, especially as skeptics: Consider the situation where the social convention of Christmas imposes a belief in God, baby Jesus and the three wise men.

That wouldn't be good, would it?

Well this seems to be the difficulty we are having. Apparently CFL thinks that you are not engaged unless you do something else as well.

Problem is he appears unable to express what this other thing is. The closest we have got is that some sort of pronouncement is required, so if you told someone where you were going after 10 steps then you would be married for the remaining 13. Apparently, or possibly not.

Maybe he will post a definition to clear it up?

No, I don't have a problem expressing myself. I have been pretty clear, and so have the others who also don't think engagement is a necessity to getting married.

Maybe you will extend the same questions to those as well?

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 06:16 AM

Even though a couple makes a point out of not wanting to go through the whole "engagement" hullabaloo

What hullabaloo? Engagement (in context) referrs to the period between agreeing to get married and the marriage ceremony itself. Whether it's marked by a 'hullabaloo' is up to the couple in question.

Brian Pears

29th August 2007, 06:24 AM

Serious question; if they were to tick a box on a legal form that had 'single', 'engaged', 'married', 'divorced', what would they tick?

What a ridiculous question! I've never seen that option on a legal form, have you? And why would it be? The statuses: "Single", "Married and "Divorced" do have legal significance. "Engaged" does not.

Additionally, even if they didn't celebrate it with a party, did they tell people they were getting married? Did they deny they were engaged if so?

Another utterly ridiculous question. If a couple told people they were going to marry, underwhat circumstances would they be required to affirm or deny that they were "engaged". You must know some very strange people - the sort who, on learning that a couple are to marry, immediately set out to corner them and demand to know if they are engaged or not. What nonsense.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 06:25 AM

What hullabaloo? Engagement (in context) referrs to the period between agreeing to get married and the marriage ceremony itself. Whether it's marked by a 'hullabaloo' is up to the couple in question.

If it were only so. There might very well be pressure from family and friends to mark the occasion, with some sort of celebration.

Professor Yaffle

29th August 2007, 06:25 AM

My engagement "hullabaloo" consisted of myself and my other half agreeing that we would get married to eachother, telling our families that we has decided this and going to buy a ring, because I don't often buy myself jewellery and this was an excuse to get a ring I had seen that I really liked (which has no diamonds in it and cost <£70). If I hadn't seen this particular ring, I probably wouldn't have bothered.

How exactly does this differ from your "not getting engaged" version of what happens in the period after deciding to get married, but before the actual wedding, other than the fact that we decided to use the word "engaged" rather than just telling people we were going to get married?

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 06:41 AM

Another utterly ridiculous question. If a couple told people they were going to marry, underwhat circumstances would they be required to affirm or deny that they were "engaged". You must know some very strange people - the sort who, on learning that a couple are to marry, immediately set out to corner them and demand to know if they are engaged or not. What nonsense.

What's more:

What right does anyone have to ask such a question?

Why should anyone be required to either confirm or deny that they are engaged?

It certainly isn't about imposing one's own social values on others. Oh, no.... :rolleyes:

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 06:47 AM

If it were only so. There might very well be pressure from family and friends to mark the occasion, with some sort of celebration.

So the couple still has the choice.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 06:51 AM

So the couple still has the choice.

If they can withstand the pressure, sure.

Think all couples can?

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 06:55 AM

If they can withstand the pressure, sure.

Think all couples can?

So what's your point?

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 06:57 AM

So what's your point?

That it is not always solely up to the couple to decide.

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 07:00 AM

That it is not always solely up to the couple to decide.

I think you're missing the point, which is that engagement is not defined by rings and parties any more than Christmas is defined by turkey and presents, however common the trimmings have become.

And the final decision about accepting the trimmings that come with engagement is very much up to the couple, even if it's made under pressure.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 07:08 AM

I refer you, once again, to the historical explanation.

Failure, once again, to provide any definition of the term as you are using it and an explanation of how this differs from the dictionary definition noted.

I am talking about the differences between marriage and engagement.

Maybe you are, but that is not the subject of this thread. Nobody has claimed that marriage and engagement are the same.

However you have claimed that "engagement" and "mutual promise to marry" are different, despite that being the dictionary definition of the term. For some reason you refuse to provide details of what that difference is.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 07:17 AM

Another utterly ridiculous question. If a couple told people they were going to marry, underwhat circumstances would they be required to affirm or deny that they were "engaged". You must know some very strange people - the sort who, on learning that a couple are to marry, immediately set out to corner them and demand to know if they are engaged or not. What nonsense.

There is one very good reason why nobody asks a couple who have told people they are going to marry whether they are engaged or not.

Its the same reason you don't ask a couple who have just told you they are married whether they are married.

Mutual promise to marry = engagement. If they have just told you that they have made such a promise, there is no need to ask if they are engaged, they have just told you they are.

Thanz

29th August 2007, 07:18 AM

I, for one, can't believe that a thread has gone on for 5 pages about the definition or common use of a word with Claus on one side and just about everyone on the other and no one has mentioned 'drumstick' yet.

You all have stronger willpower than I.

Further, all we have is an assertion by Claus that people don't get engaged anymore in Denmark. At best, this is something within his social circle. Even the engagement ring wiki Claus linked to mentions that the tradition in Denmark is for both people to wear engagement rings, which apparently look like wedding rings in do in North America (plain bands of gold).

Finally, put me on the list of people who see engagement as the time between agreeing to get married and actually getting married. How much hullabaloo goes into that will depend on the couple, their family and friends.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 07:18 AM

I think you're missing the point, which is that engagement is not defined by rings and parties any more than Christmas is defined by turkey and presents, however common the trimmings have become.

You asked me what my point was wrt it being up to the couple whether it was marked by hullabaloo or not.

So I told you.

And the final decision about accepting the trimmings that come with engagement is very much up to the couple, even if it's made under pressure.

That would depend very much what culture you are talking about.

Failure, once again, to provide any definition of the term as you are using it and an explanation of how this differs from the dictionary definition noted.

Summarily rejecting it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Maybe you are, but that is not the subject of this thread. Nobody has claimed that marriage and engagement are the same.

However you have claimed that "engagement" and "mutual promise to marry" are different, despite that being the dictionary definition of the term. For some reason you refuse to provide details of what that difference is.

No, I don't. You refuse to acknowledge that I did, merely because you disagree with it.

Do you admit that I was not the only one talking about visible pendants?

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 07:20 AM

It certainly isn't about imposing one's own social values on others. Oh, no.... :rolleyes:

You mean by denying that the definition contained in the dictionary is actually what a word means and instead imposing your own meaning on it and refusing to define what that meaning is?

Seems to me that the one looking to impose his social value on others is the one who insists that he can define "engagement" in a different way to how it is commonly used and defined in the dictionary to classify certain mutuals promises to marry as engagements while others are not.

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 07:24 AM

You asked me what my point was wrt it being up to the couple whether it was marked by hullabaloo or not.

So I told you.

Yes, and I'm suggesting that by going down that road, you're missing the point, which is whether the hullabaloo defines an engagement or merely augments it.

That would depend very much what culture you are talking about.

The one referenced in the OP of course. In cultures where the marriage rites and practices are far more formalised there would be little doubt in whether the couple are engaged or not, so there's not much to be gained from throwing it into the pot.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 07:25 AM

Summarily rejecting it doesn't mean it isn't there.

IF it is there you will be able to quote it in your next post, won't you?

Of course if it isn't then you will continue with the diversionary and evasive tactics.

No, I don't.

You mean you accept that engagement means "mutual promise to marry"?

Good, then everyone who has made a mutual promise to marry is engaged. Nice of you to finally acknowledge you were wrong.

You refuse to acknowledge that I did, merely because you disagree with it.

It will be no problem for you to quote the text where you explain the difference then?

Failure to do so will be further evidence that you have not done so.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 07:28 AM

I, for one, can't believe that a thread has gone on for 5 pages about the definition or common use of a word with Claus on one side and just about everyone on the other and no one has mentioned 'drumstick' yet.

It's been mentioned.

What is fascinating is to observe the effort that certain posters make to avoid ever admitting making an error. Certainly not the behaviour you would expect of someone who identifies themselves as a skeptic.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 07:28 AM

Yes, and I'm suggesting that by going down that road, you're missing the point, which is whether the hullabaloo defines an engagement or merely augments it.

How do you suggest we tell the difference?

The one referenced in the OP of course. In cultures where the marriage rites and practices are far more formalised there would be little doubt in whether the couple are engaged or not, so there's not much to be gained from throwing it into the pot.

But that's the purpose of the thread: To find out what goes on in other countries.

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 07:43 AM

How do you suggest we tell the difference?

By removing the the hullabaloo from the equasion and asking ourselves if what remains meets the definition of 'engagement'.

Brian Pears

29th August 2007, 07:56 AM

Several contributors have referred to the definition of "engaged". In such things my personal arbiter is always the Oxford English Dictionary.
engaged adj. having formally agreed to marry
engagement n. a formal agreement to marry
(bolding mine.)

and anticipating the next question
formal adj done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette

So I was single and I became married - I was never engaged because at no time did my wife and I do anything "in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette". We agreed to marry, told nobody except our two witnesses, and married three days later.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 08:02 AM

Several contributors have referred to the definition of "engaged". In such things my personal arbiter is always the Oxford English Dictionary.

(bolding mine.)

and anticipating the next question

So I was single and I became married - I was never engaged because at no time did my wife and I do anything "in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette". We agreed to marry, told nobody except our two witnesses, and married three days later.

Can you specify what "formalities" you consider are involved?

How is what you did not in accordance with the rules of convention or etiquette? You decided to get married, got some witnesses, and got married - seems pretty conventional to me.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 08:06 AM

What is fascinating is to observe the effort that certain posters make to avoid ever admitting making an error. Certainly not the behaviour you would expect of someone who identifies themselves as a skeptic.

"Ever"?

Do you stand by that?

By removing the the hullabaloo from the equasion and asking ourselves if what remains meets the definition of 'engagement'.

How will you do that?

Can you specify what "formalities" you consider are involved?

How is what you did not in accordance with the rules of convention or etiquette? You decided to get married, got some witnesses, and got married - seems pretty conventional to me.

Whoa....are you going to go with the dictionary or not?

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 08:16 AM

How will you do that?

Easy. We ask if an agreement to get married constitutes an engagement, regardless of whether or not there's a ring, a party, an announcement in the local rag, a hen night, a stag night and an almighty hangover for the groom when he wakes up in a police cell after being found stark naked and tied to a lamp post following his last night of freedom.

richardm

29th August 2007, 08:26 AM

Several contributors have referred to the definition of "engaged". In such things my personal arbiter is always the Oxford English Dictionary.

What version are you using? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary does not specify "Formal", it merely states that an engaged person is bound under a promise to marry, which I assume your wife and yourself did give to each other.

Professor Yaffle

29th August 2007, 08:28 AM

My dictionary (Collins):

Engagement (n) 1. A pledge of marriage; betrothal

Pledge (n) 1. A formal or solemn promise or agreement (bolding mine)

Betroth (adj) Arch. to promise to marry or to give in marriage - betrothal (n)

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 08:33 AM

Easy. We ask if an agreement to get married constitutes an engagement, regardless of whether or not there's a ring, a party, an announcement in the local rag, a hen night, a stag night and an almighty hangover for the groom when he wakes up in a police cell after being found stark naked and tied to a lamp post following his last night of freedom.

Ask? Who? Why would that settle this for all?

richardm

29th August 2007, 08:34 AM

Edit:Never mind, it's not worth it.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 08:38 AM

"Whoa....are you going to go with the dictionary or not?

Yes - are you?

Brian Pears

29th August 2007, 08:45 AM

What version are you using? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary does not specify "Formal", it merely states that an engaged person is bound under a promise to marry, which I assume your wife and yourself did give to each other.

My quotes were taken from "The Concise Oxford English Dictionary".

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 08:46 AM

Ask? Who? Why would that settle this for all?

Don't you think you should've work that one out before making the opening post?

Brian Pears

29th August 2007, 08:52 AM

Can you specify what "formalities" you consider are involved?

Are you serious? I suggest you re-read the thread where you will see a number of references to the formalities involved in "engagement".

No matter how much your wriggle and squirm, if you accept the Concise OED definition of "engagement", then an informal decision to marry with none of the conventional hullaballoo or niceties. is not enagement.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 08:56 AM

Yes - are you?

If you do that, then

- You agree that "engaged" means "having formally (done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette) agreed to marry"

- You agree that "engagement" means "a formal (done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette) agreement to marry"

Correct?

That's a far cry from engagement being just "the period between agreement to marry and the marriage".

Correct?

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 08:58 AM

Don't you think you should've work that one out before making the opening post?

Where, in the OP, do I say it would be settled this way?

richardm

29th August 2007, 09:00 AM

No matter how much your wriggle and squirm, if you accept the Concise OED definition of "engagement", then an informal decision to marry with none of the conventional hullaballoo or niceties. is not enagement.

Should we accept the Concise OED's definition when a more authoritative version of the dictionary does not include the word "formal"?

Edit: And rightly so, in my opinion. If you ask two people "have you decided to marry each other?" and they respond "yes", I believe that the overwhelming majority of people would describe that condition as being engaged to be married, whether or not they'd bought a ring. There is definitely an expectation of formality - because quite often the next question would be "Have you got a ring yet?" or "can I see the ring?" - but it's hardly essential.

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 09:01 AM

Where, in the OP, do I say it would be settled this way?

Where did I say you did?

HarryKeogh

29th August 2007, 09:05 AM

If you ask someone to marry, and they say yes, then you're engaged until the wedding ceremony takes place.

ETA: The fact that there's so much confusion around what an engagement actually is just proves that the word engagement has lost its meaning.

Indeed. Because I've never heard that definition before!

CFLarsen, in your OP you referenced a wikipedia article on "engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement#The_engagement_period)" and it defined an engagement as:

An engagement is an agreement or promise to marry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage), and also refers to the time between proposal and marriage. During this period, a couple is said to be affianced, engaged to be married, or simply engaged.

That's essentially the same as Ryokan's definition that you supposedly "never heard before".

again:
Ryokan: If you ask someone to marry, and they say yes

Wikipedia: An engagement is an agreement or promise to marry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage),

yep, that's the same thing.

Ryokan: then you're engaged until the wedding ceremony takes place

Wikipedia: and also refers to the time between proposal and marriage

yeah. same thing there too.

Did you read the wiki article that you cited? If so, then Ryokan's definition shouldn't be news to you.

Why would you look up a wiki article on engagement that clearly defines it, use it in your own post then argue about the definition so much?

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 09:07 AM

If you do that, then

- You agree that "engaged" means "having formally (done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette) agreed to marry"

- You agree that "engagement" means "a formal (done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette) agreement to marry"

Correct?

Nope, incorrect.

You don't get to choose the dictionary. How about we take a representative sample of, say, 10?

Now, how about you answer the question? Are YOU going to go with the dictionary definition?

That's a far cry from engagement being just "the period between agreement to marry and the marriage".

Correct?

Nope, lets see what the widely accepted view is from a number of dictionaries. After all you have already been told that a more authoritative version of the same dictionary is entirely in support of the definition I have used throughout this thread.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 09:10 AM

Are you serious? I suggest you re-read the thread where you will see a number of references to the formalities involved in "engagement".

No matter how much your wriggle and squirm, if you accept the Concise OED definition of "engagement", then an informal decision to marry with none of the conventional hullaballoo or niceties. is not enagement.

Re-reading the thread will not help my understand what YOUR opinion of the required formalities are.

If they have a ring, but no party and no announcement, are they engaged?
What about a party, but no ring?
Or a ring and a party but no announcement?

Only you can tell me if YOU believe these amount to engagement.

And as other posters have pointed out, why accept a less authoritative version of a dictionary over one with greater standing, or indeed accept a single definition as opposed to looking at a range of sources for the definition to identify the most widely used one?

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 09:18 AM

Where did I say you did?

What is your point about me not opening the thread until I should have worked "that one out"?

That's essentially the same as Ryokan's definition that you supposedly "never heard before".

"Essentially", unless you include the many other ones.

Nope, incorrect.

You don't get to choose the dictionary. How about we take a representative sample of, say, 10?
...
Nope, lets see what the widely accepted view is from a number of dictionaries. After all you have already been told that a more authoritative version of the same dictionary is entirely in support of the definition I have used throughout this thread.

How about we take a look at your previous post?

Is your definition of engagement that found in the dictionary?

American Heritage Dictionary entry for engage:

To obtain or contract for the services of; employ: engage a carpenter.
To arrange for the use of; reserve: engage a room. See Synonyms at book.
To pledge or promise, especially to marry.
To attract and hold the attention of; engross: a hobby that engaged her for hours at a time.
To win over or attract: His smile engages everyone he meets.
To draw into; involve: engage a shy person in conversation.
To require the use of; occupy: Studying engages most of my time.
To enter or bring into conflict with: We have engaged the enemy.
To interlock or cause to interlock; mesh: engage the automobile's clutch.
To give or take as security.

If not, then can you please explain what definition you ARE using.

What "formal stuff" is required to turn a "promise to marry" into an "engagement" under the definition you are using?

Not a word from you about taking a "representative sample of, say, 10". Not a word from you about seeing what the "widely accepted view is from a number of dictionaries".

You settled on one dictionary, and one dictionary only.

So, the question is really: Why do you get to choose the dictionary?

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 09:23 AM

What is your point about me not opening the thread until I should have worked "that one out"?

You asked a the forum a question, now you're questioning whether the forum should answer it.

Either that or you're playing silly word games and trolling.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 09:24 AM

Re-reading the thread will not help my understand what YOUR opinion of the required formalities are.

If they have a ring, but no party and no announcement, are they engaged?
What about a party, but no ring?
Or a ring and a party but no announcement?

Only you can tell me if YOU believe these amount to engagement.

And as other posters have pointed out

Not other posters. One poster. Offering his opinion.

, why accept a less authoritative version of a dictionary over one with greater standing, or indeed accept a single definition as opposed to looking at a range of sources for the definition to identify the most widely used one?

The Concise OED is a less authoritative version? That what?

Are you serious?

Know what? For future reference, why don't you rate the dictionaries according to level of authority?

You can do it right here. I'll keep the post linked, so we can always find it.

Oh, you forgot this: Do you stand by your statement that I don't "ever" admit an error?

Katana

29th August 2007, 09:25 AM

The night my husband asked me to marry him and I said "yes" was the night we became engaged.

The day we got married, we were married and no longer engaged.

The time in between was our engagement.

I don't understand the confusion.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 09:26 AM

You asked a the forum a question, now you're questioning whether the forum should answer it.

Either that or you're playing silly word games and trolling.

I'm not questioning whether the forum should answer it or not.

richardm

29th August 2007, 09:28 AM

The Concise OED is a less authoritative version? That what?

Than the Shorter OED. Which is in turn less authoritative than the OED. Which I don't have, although I believe Darat has access to it.

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 09:29 AM

I'm not questioning whether the forum should answer it or not.

No, you're playing silly word games and trolling.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 09:39 AM

Than the Shorter OED. Which is in turn less authoritative than the OED.

Why?

Who has rated dictionaries in terms of authority?

Thanz

29th August 2007, 09:48 AM

Well, I must say that this thread engages me. I considered engaging the services of a professional wordsmith to craft a clever reply, but he would have also required me to engage a hotel room for him here in the city and I figured the expense would not be worth it.

I find that these sorts of threads are always engaging in that they point out the contrasts of one C. F. Larsen. I am told by other members of the forum that he is quite engaging in person at events like the various TAMs. One wonders why he appears so abrasive in the forum. With over 36,000 posts it is clear that the forum engages a lot of his time. He certainly enjoys engaging the ‘woos’ and can often been seen crying for evidence.

Perhaps, then, he shouldn’t be surprised when someone asks him for evidence for his assertion that those in Denmark no longer bother with engagement, despite what his own source says regarding the tradition of engagement in Denmark.

And now I shall engage the left button of my mouse to send this reply to the thread.

HarryKeogh

29th August 2007, 09:53 AM

richardm

29th August 2007, 10:14 AM

Why?

Who has rated dictionaries in terms of authority?

The SOED is an abridged version of the full OED, which I hope you would accept is an authoritative dictionary. The Concise is not. It is intended to give definitions of words in common usage, but those definitions are (in order to keep the size manageable) quite short. Which can lead to misunderstandings as I believe we have above:

When the Concise OED uses the word "formal" I believe that rather than meaning that they have to do the whole I-am-down-on-one-knee-don't choke-on-the-diamond-ring-in-the-champagne-please bit, it is attempting to indicate that the couple have to acknowledge that they are definitely going to get married. It is not enough for someone to think that at some point in the future they might like to get married, as you suggested above. They have to have some sort of agreement along the lines of "Wanna get hitched?" "Yep".

This impression is reinforced when the definition is checked in a version of the dictionary that gives fuller, more complete expositions of the word and we discover that the word "formal" is not used.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 10:17 AM

The SOED is an abridged version of the full OED, which I hope you would accept is an authoritative dictionary. The Concise is not. It is intended to give definitions of words in common usage, but those definitions are (in order to keep the size manageable) quite short. Which can lead to misunderstandings as I believe we have above:

When the Concise OED uses the word "formal" I believe that rather than meaning that they have to do the whole I-am-down-on-one-knee-don't choke-on-the-diamond-ring-in-the-champagne-please bit, it is attempting to indicate that the couple have to acknowledge that they are definitely going to get married. It is not enough for someone to think that at some point in the future they might like to get married, as you suggested above. They have to have some sort of agreement along the lines of "Wanna get hitched?" "Yep".

This impression is reinforced when the definition is checked in a version of the dictionary that gives fuller, more complete expositions of the word and we discover that the word "formal" is not used.

Whoa....just because it is an abridged version doesn't make it less authoritative.

Does volume now determine quality?

Steven Howard

29th August 2007, 10:17 AM

If you had stated this a little more clearly, you could have avoided the above pointless argument.

Remember who you're talking to. Claus didn't rack up the highest post count on the forum by avoiding pointless arguments.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 10:20 AM

Not a word from you about taking a "representative sample of, say, 10". Not a word from you about seeing what the "widely accepted view is from a number of dictionaries".

Quote mining, the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Don't pretend to be so stupid that you are comparing a request for you to clarify what definition you are using, with an assertion that if I accept a dictionary definition I MUST accept that in the only dictionary you have found that agrees with you, even though it is contradicted by its more authoritative version.

You settled on one dictionary, and one dictionary only.

So, the question is really: Why do you get to choose the dictionary?

And the answer is that I am not claiming to - I am the one offering to accept the definition contained in a representative sample.

So again, will YOU accept the majority definition from a representative sample of dictionaries?

Please try and answer this question so I don't have to keep repeating it, I know you hate lists of unanswered questions.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 10:23 AM

The Concise OED is a less authoritative version? That what?

The Shorter OED.

Oh, you forgot this: Do you stand by your statement that I don't "ever" admit an error?

Here's a deal for you, if you can find the post where I made that statement, I will answer it - if you can't then you provide (wholly within a single post, no links, no claims to refer to historical events) the definition YOU are using for "engaged"?

Deal?

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 10:26 AM

The Collins English Dictionary (at least the hard copy I have) defines engaged as "pledged to be married, betrothed".

richardm

29th August 2007, 10:28 AM

Whoa....just because it is an abridged version doesn't make it less authoritative.

Does volume now determine quality?

Did you actually read anything that I wrote about the relative merits of the dictionaries?

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 10:32 AM

Quote mining, the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Don't pretend to be so stupid that you are comparing a request for you to clarify what definition you are using, with an assertion that if I accept a dictionary definition I MUST accept that in the only dictionary you have found that agrees with you, even though it is contradicted by its more authoritative version.

No, I am not quote mining. Nowhere did you use other dictionaries. You demanded that I went with the one you chose.

And the answer is that I am not claiming to

That's exactly what you did.

I am the one offering to accept the definition contained in a representative sample.

No, not a "sample". A specific dictionary, chosen by you as the authoritative one.

So again, will YOU accept the majority definition from a representative sample of dictionaries?

But you didn't do that. Why should I?

The Shorter OED.

Why that?

Here's a deal for you, if you can find the post where I made that statement, I will answer it - if you can't then you provide (wholly within a single post, no links, no claims to refer to historical events) the definition YOU are using for "engaged"?

Deal?

Here is the post:

What is fascinating is to observe the effort that certain posters make to avoid ever admitting making an error. Certainly not the behaviour you would expect of someone who identifies themselves as a skeptic.

Do you still stand by that?

The Collins English Dictionary (at least the hard copy I have) defines engaged as "pledged to be married, betrothed".

You can't just pick your way through the dictionaries and sort those who you like.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 10:34 AM

Did you actually read anything that I wrote about the relative merits of the dictionaries?

Yes, I did. Just because one is longer doesn't make it more authoritative. You can have the exact same description in two different sized chunks.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 10:38 AM

No, I am not quote mining. Nowhere did you use other dictionaries. You demanded that I went with the one you chose.

I didn't demand anything. I asked if that was the definition you were using or if not if you would provide the definition you were using. So far you have failed to do so.

So unless you can back up your claim that I demanded you use this definition with evidence, perhaps you will withdraw that claim - you are keen on evidence to support claims, right?

Why that?

Try reading richardm's post, the explanation is very clear.

Here is the post:

Just to be clear this is the post where you claim that I made a "statement that [you] don't "ever" admit an error"?

By the way, can you confirm that you accept the terms of the deal?

You can't just pick your way through the dictionaries and sort those who you like.

If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!

Glad you agree that this is what is needed.

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 10:43 AM

Yes, I did. Just because one is longer doesn't make it more authoritative. You can have the exact same description in two different sized chunks.

Does it make it any less authoritative then? Is there any reason why we should back the concise dictionary over its standard counterpart?

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 10:44 AM

I didn't demand anything. I asked if that was the definition you were using or if not if you would provide the definition you were using. So far you have failed to do so.

Nonsense. You demanded that I went with your specific dictionary.

Try reading richardm's post, the explanation is very clear.

Try reading my responses to him.

Just to be clear this is the post where you claim that I made a "statement that [you] don't "ever" admit an error"?

Yes.

By the way, can you confirm that you accept the terms of the deal?

No. I don't see any reasons to do any "deals" with you. You are clearly not debating honestly.

If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!

No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 10:46 AM

Does it make it any less authoritative then? Is there any reason why we should back the concise dictionary over its standard counterpart?

Not if the two complete each other.

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 10:49 AM

Ian Osborne

29th August 2007, 10:49 AM

Not if the two complete each other.

So the full version is incomplete without the abridged version?

richardm

29th August 2007, 10:50 AM

Yes, I did. Just because one is longer doesn't make it more authoritative. You can have the exact same description in two different sized chunks.

Actually I think to an extent size can matter. Whenever you try to shoehorn information into a smaller space you run the risk of compromising meaning or introducing ambiguity. When you have room to expound more carefully and fully then you can make your meaning clearer.

But that is less important than the distinction that the SOED is an abridged version of the full OED. That is to say, they've removed some of the more esoteric words that are almost never encountered, and pretty much ignored anything that was obsolete by the 18th Century. The definitions are the result of careful scholarship. It is much closer to the OED's content than the COED.

The COED, on the other hand, is a different animal because it is intended for a different use. It is a handbook of language, if you like, rather than a mechanic's guide. It's not wrong, but it is less detailed and accurate.

CFLarsen

29th August 2007, 10:56 AM

A few more definitions, to help in finding a representative sample (found from a google search on "ditionary definition engaged" (including typo!)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engagement
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/engagement
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/engagement
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861608474/engagement.html
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ENGAGEMENT
http://www.dictionary.net/engaged

No need to wear yourself out. You need to define what makes a dictionary authoritative first.

So the full version is incomplete without the abridged version?

No.

Actually I think to an extent size can matter. Whenever you try to shoehorn information into a smaller space you run the risk of compromising meaning or introducing ambiguity. When you have room to expound more carefully and fully then you can make your meaning clearer.

But that is less important than the distinction that the SOED is an abridged version of the full OED. That is to say, they've removed some of the more esoteric words that are almost never encountered, and pretty much ignored anything that was obsolete by the 18th Century. The definitions are the result of careful scholarship. It is much closer to the OED's content than the COED.

The COED, on the other hand, is a different animal because it is intended for a different use. It is a handbook of language, if you like, rather than a mechanic's guide. It's not wrong, but it is less detailed and accurate.

Of course. So, where do we go for The Authoritative Dictionary?

Jaggy Bunnet

29th August 2007, 10:58 AM

Nonsense. You demanded that I went with your specific dictionary.

Evidence?

Lets see that post in full again shall we?

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Is your definition of engagement that found in the dictionary?

American Heritage Dictionary entry for engage:

To obtain or contract for the services of; employ: engage a carpenter.
To arrange for the use of; reserve: engage a room. See Synonyms at book.
To pledge or promise, especially to marry.
To attract and hold the attention of; engross: a hobby that engaged her for hours at a time.
To win over or attract: His smile engages everyone he meets.
To draw into; involve: engage a shy person in conversation.
To require the use of; occupy: Studying engages most of my time.
To enter or bring into conflict with: We have engaged the enemy.
To interlock or cause to interlock; mesh: engage the automobile's clutch.
To give or take as security.

If not, then can you please explain what definition you ARE using.

What "formal stuff" is required to turn a "promise to marry" into an "engagement" under the definition you are using?

Should be easy enough for you to point out the bit demanding you use that definition - unless of course you are a liar.

Yes.

Good, glad that's clear.

No. I don't see any reasons to do any "deals" with you. You are clearly not debating honestly.[

And here we see how fundamentally dishonest you are, because you KNOW that the post does NOT contain the statement you claimed, you have to refuse the deal, because accepting it means you would have to post a definition (which despite your claims to have done so it is apparent you have not).

Someone is not debating honestly, but you need to give some more thought as to who that is.

No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.

Another easily proved lie:

All posted by Jaggy Bunnet:

Nope, lets see what the widely accepted view is from a number of dictionaries.
You don't get to choose the dictionary. How about we take a representative sample of, say, 10?
And the answer is that I am not claiming to - I am the one offering to accept the definition contained in a representative sample.

So again, will YOU accept the majority definition from a representative sample of dictionaries?