• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Engaged?

richardm said:
But I should warn you that if necessary I will borrow Jaggy's Collins Dictionary to do so, and that is a hard-back edition with thumb indexes.

So I think on balance it's better if I go and get a beer instead.
Click to expand...

No thumb indexes (they cost more), but it is hardback.

Think I'll join you in a beer.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Evidence?

Lets see that post in full again shall we?

Should be easy enough for you to point about the bit demanding you use that definition - unless of course you are a liar.
Click to expand...

I did: You pointed to the American Heritage dictionary and went from there.

Jaggy Bunnet said:
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.
Click to expand...

It does "NOT" contain the statement I claimed? Why not? Could you go through the post and explain what each part means?

Jaggy Bunnet said:
Another easily proved lie:
Click to expand...

Nope.

Jaggy Bunnet said:
So again, will YOU accept the majority definition from a representative sample of dictionaries?
Click to expand...

Jaggy Bunnet said:
No I don't.

It is perfectly clear what the widely accepted dictionary definition is.
Click to expand...

Whoops. Are you giving up on finding 10 dictionaries that agree with you?
 
CFLarsen said:
It's the announcement of betrothal that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Once again, why is betrothal or the announcement of same, ridiculous?
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.
Click to expand...
So you agree that your "tradition for tradition's sake" argument is bogus.

What then, is your problem with people announcing their betrothal?
 
Danish Dynamite, do you agree with the following assessment of the current state of marriage and engagement in Denmark generally?

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.
Click to expand...
 
Three pages in the past 12 hours.

Tickets, $0-50c:

anicaro3.gif
 
Thanz said:
Danish Dynamite, do you agree with the following assessment of the current state of marriage and engagement in Denmark generally?
Click to expand...
As quoted by Thanz:
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.
Click to expand...
More or less, yes. It is a generalization but even without having the statistics at hand, I suspect it is acceptable as "the truth".
 
Brian Pears said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually I have, recently on an application for a rental property and a few years ago for a government job application, and I also question why they needed to know. However that's beside the point - if asked if they were engaged, would they say 'yes' or 'no'? If no, would they be aware of the confusion they'd be causing?

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.
Click to expand...

Way to twist what I said, buddy! If a couple says 'we're going to marry', the assumption is they are engaged, as that's the widely accepted meaning of the term. If they're so concerned to not be seen as such they'd have to make that clear. Nobody would be 'cornering' anybody. It's about common assumptions.

Athon
 
Athon

I seem to understand from previous conversation with him that Claus is not married.

I think that bears on this topic in at least one way.

It's about common assumptions
Click to expand...
Aye, which is where Pedantry 'R Us enters the conversation, isn't it? ;)

DR
 
Ian Osborne said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. Claus' argument, which he either vaguely refers to a 'historical' definition or suggests it concerns a ring, a ceremony and an announcement, rests on the fact that engagement = 'hullabaloo'. The very fact so many people have said that the hullabaloo isn't necessary to be engaged (and while there might be pressure from the parents to have a party, that hardly equates some wider meaning to engagement), he ignores.

Claus, you can say I misread your posts all you want. I might even agree I've misunderstood. Yet I keep asking for clarification, which you dodge again and again. Yes, this is indeed ridiculous. If you would just articulate in one post what engagement means, clearly, without obfuscating to some historical and obviously outdated interpretation, we might conclude something. Instead you've continued to embarrass yourself.

Like the drumstick debacle, you not only demonstrate a failure to understand how language operates but you refuse to be educated on it by a number of people.

Athon
 
richardm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If formal means 'as per custom', does that mean one cannot wed until the man gets down on knee with a ring? Of course not. How ridiculous.

I know a lot of arguments come down to a difference in meaning, but this one is just ludicrous. The easiest thing is to go around and ask people if you can intend to marry and not be engaged. I so far haven't gotten anything but blank looks from people, followed by a confused line of questions (namely 'why the hell are you asking such a silly question?). Nobody's saying you have to feel comfortable with any connotations, or that you can't have parties and rings...but to insist that that is the meaning of engagement is laughable.

Athon
 
Brian Pears said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would explain why my first marriage failed. I was never engaged to her in the first place. :rolleyes:

This is getting more and more insane. So now, if you don't give a ring or make an announcement and have a party, you're not engaged? WTF?

I feel like I've just fallen down the rabbithole.

Athon
 
I'm trying to think how the OP could have been worded to have made for a more productive thread instead of turning into a dictionary pissing contest.

Maybe something like "Don't you think the traditions surrounding people's engagements are silly?" would have worked better. I would have gladly railed against lavish engagement parties and gaudy diamond rings.

But the way it was worded was absolutely puzzling to me since every person I've ever asked outside this forum and every dictionary I've checked sees an engagement as an agreement to marry. So, in my case, for one to ask "do people in your country get engaged?" is a very odd question with a very obvious answer. If I knew friends were getting married and asked them "great, when did you get engaged?" and they responded "oh, but we're not engaged" I would look at them as if they had two heads...each.

Apparently the term carries a different connotation elsewhere. Fair enough.

So if I were to ask a typical Dane "what does it mean for a couple to be engaged?" what would the answer be?
 
Maybe Danes don't get engaged because they're too busy shooting air marshals? Just a thought...
 
athon said:
He sure didn't get it by getting out into the world, either.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why he's so confused about what being engaged means . The only time he ever talks to a woman, he has to switch on his webcam and give her his credit card number first. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom