Then you wouldn't mind repeating them. You've had several requests now, meaning we simply can't find them.
You in particular have, but rejected them out of hand. That is, of course, your perogative, but it doesn't mean that I haven't provided them.
You introduced the word 'visible'. Nobody else brought that descriptor into it.
That wasn't the question: Was I the only one talking about visible symbols? No, I wasn't.
This is so sad: because the word 'engaged' means 'intent to marry'. If you intend to marry, you are engaged. End of story.
Is it? Most people intend to marry, even if they haven't a significant other. They aren't engaged.
Historical implications of the term, sure. I covered that. If somebody says they're engaged today, I don't assume anything other than the fact they are working on getting married. As I said, meanings evolve.
That is your perception of what "engaged" means. You cannot, however, ignore that other people put much more into it.
I never said otherwise. I said that offering a gift is not equivalent to marking one's territory. Try not to lie again, Claus. Your argument won't survive much more of it.
I do not lie. You said:
Claus is also conveniently ignoring the fact that the of bestowing a ring at an engagement is a tradition women drive rather than men. How this is therefore a 'marking of territory', complete with the connotation of cave-man territorial pissings, is beyond me.
I did not ignore that, nor did I say anything about "marking of territory" was solely masculine.
The fact that most people on this thread have given a definition which conflicts with yours is evidence enough to discredit it. Face it; the one universal denotation to engagement is that it implies getting married. It would be honest for those who don't like the term to admit that they prefer not to use it. I have no issue with that. To say they're not engaged is a direct contradiction of its meaning, however, akin to two people who are no longer living together and have intention to work again at a marriage deny they are separated or divorced.
But that's precisely what people who don't like the term do: They prefer not to use it
about themselves.
Excuse me for losing it for a second, but who the **** are you to attribute intentions to my actions? Yes; the only reasons for my purchasing her a gift for giving on the night of our engagement was that I wanted to give her something nice that would make her happy.
Fortunately, I don't need to attribute intentions to your actions. I can simply go with what you said:
Myself and NC haven't had (and won't have) an engagement party. I bought her a small opal pendant as a gift, not because tradition demanded it but rather I felt I wanted to mark the moment with something special.
It meant a little more than just to make her happy. You wanted to mark the moment.
You follow with this:
However, we are engaged in every sense of the word.
In whose sense? Your own, or those who attach a lot more meaning and ceremony to "engagement"?
Again, do you see all jewellery on a girl as signs of ownership?
I did answer that: It depends on the jewellery. So no, not "all".
Language doesn't change to suit the user of it, Claus. It is a social text. I can't change it, you can't change it - it can only evolve with time. People can refuse to use the term, which is fine by me. But to say they are intending to be married and are not engaged contradicts the definition.
...
Social values? What values? That they intend to marry? That's not a value - it's a fact. Engagement = intension to marry. It doesn't get simpler.
But you are imposing your own values of what "engagement" is.
Claus, values have nothing to do with the denotative meaning of 'engagement'. You really don't know what a value is, do you? By your use of the term I can only come to that conclusion.
You cannot possibly ignore that some people have some values about what constitutes "engagement", while others have other values. That's what this thread is all about!
So you didn't mean that engagement carries a ceremonial, symbolic-heavy connotation outside of Denmark? You didn't mean that engagement isn't the defined period between deciding to get married and marriage itself? You didn't mean that offering a gift, such as a pendant or a ring, is a man imposing a symbol of ownership on his girlfriend?
I asked if other countries had the same situation as Denmark does.
Don't play daft. I'm discussing engagement evolving as a term.
I'm not playing daft, I go with what you say:
athon said:
Marriage itself has evolved in tradition, connotation and form. And it will continue to do so, in spite of your protesting.
I have not "protested" the evolving of marriage in any way, shape or form. Nor, for that matter, have I "protested" the evolving of engagement.
Why not? In which cases?
And when the meaning is no longer known? Why do women carry a bouquet of flowers? Why a veil? Why is there a best man, and why is he called that? I honestly don't know, although I'm sure I could look it up. Most people, I venture, wouldn't know where they come from, either. Yet they still do them.
Sure, because
some meanings are forgotten. I pointed to Pentecost earlier as a custom that is a mystery to most Danes, yet we still celebrate it.
Practice does not automatically carry connotation and baggage. The term 'engagement' isn't even the more traditional term. Nobody uses 'betrothed' anymore. The term has evolved.
It sure has.
So, again, do you feel that a couple should keep their intentions secret until the day? If not, then it's an expression of intent to marry. Ergo, engagement.
That's your simplified version, yes. But then, you ignore the social baggage that comes with it for other people.
Rings? A lot of people don't exchange gifts and are still engaged. Ceremony? See rings. Proclamation? Well, again, unless you want to keep the intention secret, I can't see how you can't inform people of the intention.
There is a difference between accouncing your marriage and announcing your engagement.
Seriously? You see a girl wearing a pendant, and you automatically think a guy 'owns' her?
No, read what I said. It depends on the jewellery.
Ok, fine. You caught me out. I misunderstood. I now concede that in spite of what people have said, you evidentally don't know one way or another whether engagement has additional meaning and implication outside of Denmark. The fact that your opening post itself suggested that you felt otherwise is my mistake.
I now see that you don't know how others perceive engagement. So, consider yourself now informed - in other countries, engagement does not automatically carry connotation of any sort, and with few exceptions means literally 'intends on marrying'.
Wow, that was easy. I should have listened earlier.
Athon
That is not what I meant, and you know it. You have misunderstood me so many times in this thread, that I think it is time you explain what parts of which posts of mine made you come to such erroneously conclusions. I have asked you to do this before, but you have refused, and do so again.
You are clearly not interested in what I say, but what you want me to say.
I agree with what Teek said in post #103: It is a private matter, and it is no business of yours or anyone else to slap a sticker on people that means something to you, but not to them, just because you feel it is appropriate.
