Engaged?

[Ian Osborne]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It certainly isn't about imposing one's own social values on others. Oh, no....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

My dictionary (Collins):

Engagement 1. A pledge of marriage; betrothal

Pledge 1. A formal or solemn promise or agreement (bolding mine)

Betroth (adj) Arch. to promise to marry or to give in marriage - betrothal

 

[CFLarsen]

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]

Edit:Never mind, it's not worth it.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

"Whoa....are you going to go with the dictionary or not?

Yes - are you?