Engaged?

[Brian Pears]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Where, in the OP, do I say it would be settled this way?

Where did I say you did?

 

[HarryKeogh]

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" and it defined an engagement as:

An engagement is an agreement or promise to marry, 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,

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'm not questioning whether the forum should answer it or not.

No, you're playing silly word games and trolling.

 

[CFLarsen]

Than the Shorter OED. Which is in turn less authoritative than the OED.

Why?

Who has rated dictionaries in terms of authority?

 

[Thanz]

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]

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.

There shouldn't be any confusion.

But of course there is for reasons beyond all comprehension.