Engaged?

[CFLarsen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[athon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.