Engaged?

[Ian Osborne]

And Claus, what's you're definition of 'engagement'? Do you accept the one formulated earlier and accepted by the rest of this thread?

Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack!

 

[CFLarsen]

Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack!

Ignore post #29 all you like.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

My mistake: You do read what I say. And you do understand what I say.

Up to here we agree. I understand that you wrote "No you didn't" as a claim that I had not done what I claimed to have done in the sentence that you quoted immediately preceeding your words.

You just claim it means something else than what I do say, even after I explain it.

No, I claim it means what you say, applying a standard meaning of the words in the English language. You then "explain" that when you said "No you didn't" you actually meant "Yes you did" and that it is my fault for assuming that when you wrote "No you didn't" I assumed you meant "No you didn't".

Your argument is no more or less than "words mean whatever I want them to mean".

 

[Ian Osborne]

THEN - SHARE - IT - WITH - US!

Restate your position, in terms us poor fools can understand. From my reading of the posts in question:

• Athon said in several territories, engagement is the period between agreeing to marry and actually marrying.

• You said, "Engagement in Denmark is the same".

From these two statements, I infer your position is that in Denmark (the subject of this thread) engagement is a state of preparing for marriage, post-agreement to marry, but pre-marriage or a change of mind. Am I correct?

If you hold this position, your statement that people don't get engaged in Denmark only makes sense if Danes don't marry or they marry without any forward planning whatsoever. Do you follow?

If my logic is in any way faulty, please explain it in simple terms; don't simply claim to have done so earlier in the thread without explicitly restating your position.

Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack!

 

[Zep]

Great. I take a few week's break and Claus tries to send a reputedly happy and joyful event down the toilet of nit-pickery.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your argument is no more or less than "words mean whatever I want them to mean".

No, my argument is that customs have different meanings to different people.

I have no idea why it is so important to enforce one perception of "engagement" on the entire population on this planet.

 

[Ian Osborne]

No, my argument is that customs have different meanings to different people.

I have no idea why it is so important to enforce one perception of "engagement" on the entire population on this planet.

So what's your perception of "engagement"? Is it the same as what everyone else thinks, ie. the time between agreeing to marry and actually marrying? If not, what is it?

And don't point to Post #29. It's already been explained to you why what you say here is self contradictory.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, my argument is that customs have different meanings to different people.

And this is relevant to what "No you didn't" means how exactly? To help you out, here is what I posted:

"No I read what you say.

For example when you said "No, you didn't." immediately after quoting me saying "If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!", I read it.

Unfortunately I speak English whereas you appear to be writing in Larsenese where the phrase "No, you didn't." can have many meanings, including "Yes, you did.""

I have no idea why it is so important to enforce one perception of "engagement" on the entire population on this planet.

No-one is forcing any perception of engagement on anyone, any more than saying someone is pregnant is forcing a perception of pregnancy on them.

 

[CFLarsen]

So what's your perception of "engagement"? Is it the same as what everyone else thinks, ie. the time between agreeing to marry and actually marrying? If not, what is it?

And don't point to Post #29. It's already been explained to you why what you say here is self contradictory.

You actually forbid me to refer to my own explanation?

And this is relevant to what "No you didn't" means how exactly? To help you out, here is what I posted:

"No I read what you say.

For example when you said "No, you didn't." immediately after quoting me saying "If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!", I read it.

Unfortunately I speak English whereas you appear to be writing in Larsenese where the phrase "No, you didn't." can have many meanings, including "Yes, you did.""

Then, what does it matter what I say?

No-one is forcing any perception of engagement on anyone, any more than saying someone is pregnant is forcing a perception of pregnancy on them.

The difference is that pregnancy is a factual state of the body. Engagement is a social custom for some people. Precisely like Christmas.

Unless you want to argue that Christmas is not a social custom for some, but something equivalent to pregnancy.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Then, what does it matter what I say?

A good question if you then claim that when you say "No you didn't" you are not denying the claim that you posted those words as a direct reply to.

How is anyone meant to tell if you agree with a statement or not when, according to you, saying "No you didn't" is not a denial of a claim?

The difference is that pregnancy is a factual state of the body. Engagement is a social custom for some people. Precisely like Christmas.

Unless you want to argue that Christmas is not a social custom for some, but something equivalent to pregnancy.

No, engagement is a factual state. If you have made a mutual promise to marry and have not yet married, or terminated that mutual promise, then you are engaged.

 

[CFLarsen]

A good question if you then claim that when you say "No you didn't" you are not denying the claim that you posted those words as a direct reply to.

How is anyone meant to tell if you agree with a statement or not when, according to you, saying "No you didn't" is not a denial of a claim?

Since it doesn't matter what I say, you don't have to concern yourself with that.

No, engagement is a factual state. If you have made a mutual promise to marry and have not yet married, or terminated that mutual promise, then you are engaged.

There is a universally accepted definition of engagement? One that transcends all cultures? One that everyone must adhere to?

O RLY?

 

[Ian Osborne]

There is a universally accepted definition of engagement? One that transcends all cultures? One that everyone must adhere to?

You keep mentioning this 'all cultures' thang, even though the thread clearly refers to Denmark. Another way of avoiding the question...

 

[CFLarsen]

You keep mentioning this 'all cultures' thang, even though the thread clearly refers to Denmark. Another way of avoiding the question...

Just to help you, since you clearly didn't read the opening post:

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

And, if you look a little further, you will see references to other countries as well, the US and the UK being just two.

I take it you don't think there is a universally accepted definition of engagement?

 

[Ian Osborne]

So what, exactly, are you looking for?

 

[CFLarsen]

So what, exactly, are you looking for?

What it is like in other countries.

I take it you don't think there is a universally accepted definition of engagement?

 

[Ian Osborne]

I'm not familiar with the marital practices of non-western cultures, but I'd be surprised if engagement isn't pretty-much universal. Even if a marriage is arranged and the bride and groom only meet on their wedding day, there's a period where the marriage is planned, but not yet executed.

 

[HarryKeogh]

What it is like in other countries.

Here in the United States every couple (provided they're both willing partners) gets engaged prior to getting married. The engagement runs from when they agree to marry to the actual wedding.

It's usually marked with a we're-getting-married ring or a we're-getting-married party.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not familiar with the marital practices of non-western cultures, but I'd be surprised if engagement isn't pretty-much universal. Even if a marriage is arranged and the bride and groom only meet on their wedding day, there's a period where the marriage is planned, but not yet executed.

That's how you see "engagement".

 

[quixotecoyote]

That's how you see "engagement".

I hear it's the same in Denmark, actually.

 

[Ian Osborne]

That's how you see "engagement".

Correct - that was the question you asked.

Now are you going to tell us how you see engagement?