Glossary of Relationship Terms

Marriage, Love Relationships

& Polykoity

By

Norman Elliott Anderson

Former title (until June 27, 2003):

Marriage, Love Relationships & Polykoity: A Glossary of Terms

Alternative titles:

The Language of Love

The Lexicon of Love

The Lovers' Dictionary

Love's Vocabulary

The Romantic's Dictionary

See Also Love

The Vocabulary of Love and Relationships

INTRODUCTION

"B.ríhaspate prathamá.m vācó ágra.m yát praírata nāmadhéya.m dádhānā.h | yád eshā.m .srésh.tha.m yád ariprám ´āsit pre.n´ā tád eshā.m níhita.m gúhāví.h"

("B.rhaspati! When they came forth to establish the first beginning of language, setting up names, what had been hidden in them as their best and purest good became manifest through love.")

~ Rig Veda 10.71.1, as translated by Frits Staal^1a ~

"Chaque sentiment a son language qui lui convient."

("Every sentiment has the language proper to it.")

~ Pierre Choderlos de Laclos^1b ~

"The spirit of music arises from primeval speech, by means of which males and females are attracted to each other."

~ Winwood Reade^1c ~

"The language of erotica [i.e. erotic love] is, by dismal default, silence."

~ Max Weatherly^1e ~

"Why is poetry the preferred medium for the expression and description of love rather than, say, the essay? Not because necessarily arcane or complicated or flowery or convoluted. Often quite otherwise: common, simple, earthy, and direct. But because love challenges not just thought but language itself, and poetry is the medium in which language most reaches beyond itself." So I wrote in my thought journal in February of 2012. However, the comment should be extended to touch on fiction, which is the preferred medium for the exploration of the intricacies of love relationships, one of the reasons being that fiction frees the author to build intangible connections between characters and to examine those connections from whatever angles he or she chooses. Seldom does a biography or even an autobiography allow that without the introduction of either fiction or hypotheticals. The point is that love and love relationships pose a special challenge to language.

This glossary is not about sex: it is not about the physicalities by which love and desire are expressed. It is instead about one of the great realms of intangibility in human life, namely, connections -- both direct and indirect connections; formal, informal, intended, unintended, real, and imaginary connections -- between people due to love and sex. From time to time in the glossary, there is cross-over into physicalities; but that is to serve the relational focus.  

This is a glossary of relationship terms or, more specifically, terms for or related to marriage, love relationships, and multiple sexual partnerships over the course of a lifetime. Expressions and even some whole sayings that function like terms are also included. At the core of the subject matter are traditional marriage and alternatives to it. The point is to bring together in one alphabetical list anthropological, ethical, historical, legal, psychological, and religious terms, as well as terms generated by various social movements and, for that matter, terms from almost any source so long as they are related to the subject and are susceptible to general use. Special attention, sometimes even exegetical attention, is given to biblical terms, because of their enormous influence around the world. Generally definitions given are not prescriptive. Rather they are descriptive of how terms are actually used.

For terms that fall outside of the scope of this glossary -- do expect some spill in -- see the following chart.

Categories of Terms That Fall Outside the Scope of This Glossary (unless specific to love relationships in at least one of the sense)
Categories	Examples of Omissions
Kinship terms, except for broad terms, terms related to affinity, and general family terms	For a list of examples, see under "kinship"
Terms having to do with the details of wedding celebrations, except for those that are directly related to the joining of partners	See under "wedding"
Terms of peerage or station in life, even if they indicate spousehood	However, see under "title" for a chart
Terms related to pregnancy	"Dystocia," "eutocia," "in the family way," "knock up," "oikonisus," "nepiomania," "opsimatria," "opsipatria," "parturition," "philoprogeneity"
Terms related to offspring	See under "interracial marriage," "mulier," and "out of wedlock"
Terms having to do with prostitution or other aspects of the sex industry	"Floozy," "hooker," "hustler," "john," "pornerastic," "scortator," "sex tour," "strumpet," "trull," "woman of ill-repute"
Terms having chiefly to do with the physical aspects of sexual practices, even of group sex, although other terms related to group sex are included	See under "group sex"
Terms having chiefly to do with BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, masochism).	See under "Dominant/submissive relationship," and note the BDSM cross-reference
Terms having to do with the watching or awareness of sexual activity, except insofar as partnership is involved	See under "mixoscopia"
Terms having to do with sexual orientation, except for a handful of the most basic terms	"Berdache," "butch," "femme," "prushun," "sathon," "winktes"
Terms having to do with gender-identity/role, except as specifically relational or as needed in relation to other terms in the glossary	"Transsexual," "transvestite"
Terms for emotions, except as they relate to love	"Anger," "apétie" (the latter, De Sade's "indifference," is borderline)
Terms for general interpersonal dynamics	"Peacemaking," "power struggle"
Terms for general psychological processes and states and for psychological dynamics between people	"Codependence," "individualtion," "passive-aggressive behavior," "transference"
Terms for paraphilias and pathologies, except for those pyschological conditions that have to do with partners	"Electra complex," "narratophilia," "normophilia," "Oedipus complex," "sexual abuse"
Names of specific groups; although such groups are responsible for some of the terminology and may be mentioned here and there	See under "libertinism"
Specific aphrodisiacs and love potions	"Pomme d'amour"
Terms developed for highly particularized systems, except as those terms lend themselves to outside use	Terms used in the system of Charles Fourier (1772-1837), which was presented in Le Nouveau monde amoureux (1967); also Klingon terms used in Star Trek, such as bang (love or one who is loved), be'nal (wife), loDnal (husband), nay (marry, wife as subject), Saw (marry, husband as subject), tlhogh (marriage)

The point is to fill a niche. Glossaries for terms related to kinship, weddings, sexual anatomy, sexual practices, and psychological disorders abound. However, love relationships have received comparatively scant attention, even in textbook glossaries on human sexuality and the family; and many relationship terms (or senses specific to love relationships), including some that are decades or centuries old, have never been incorporated into any of the major dictionaries.

Frankly I am puzzled by this neglect, since relationships are so fundamental to human life. I wonder:

• Could the neglect be due to a simple blindness to the fundamentals of life as terms from more esoteric fields are pursued?
• Could it be due to a lexicographical bias towards the physical rather than the relational?
• Could it be due to a distaste for the sources where many of the terms are to be found?
• Could it be due to a fear of the effects of offending conventional sensibilities?
• Could it be due to a fear of perpetuating views of the world that some find unsavory or even of precipitating social change, a fear that presenting a full panoply of relationship terms brings into awareness options that people might actually opt for?
• Could it be due to the fact that some of the roots of English lexicography go back to churchmen, who (hypothetically) instilled a bias into the shape and scope of dictionaries from the beginning?
  
• Could it be because a focus on the study of human sexuality and love is, even today, a career-buster for many scholars?

Many of the terms found herein do represent relationships that are anathema to many. No attempt is made to censor such terms, although slight censoring has been done so that this document is not automatically excluded by filters on the basis of the f*ck word. (I've discovered that this glossary is sometimes filtered out anyway. Oh well!)

In my view, it is important to have a full panoply of relationship terms at one's disposal, at the very least for the sake of serious discussion -- whether sociological, ethical, or otherwise -- and for the sake of precision and understanding. Furthermore, helping professionals, such as counselors, psychiatrists, and pastors, can hardly afford to be clueless when it comes to understanding the language and the attitudes embodied in the language of those they serve; and they need a means to be clued in. For such purposes the vocabulary of marriage and relationships is inseparable from the vocabulary of polykoity and nonconventionality. I have certainly been struck by the extent to which the lack of an adequate vocabulary has stunted serious discussion in my own field of ethics. It's simply not okay to be clueless in ethics, and I see this glossary as an assist to being clued in and as a necessary precursor to an adequate dictionary of sexual ethics, which is much needed.

This glossary is, to my mind, more about the expansion of both the vocabulary and the awareness of its readers than about being a handy place to look up a word, although it serves that function as well.

Allow me to make clear early on that this glossary is far from comprehensive. It does not even cull all the terms within scope from the major English-language dictionaries, such as The Oxford English Dictionary. It's not that those terms aren't welcome here, but it seemed to me to be far more valuable to run down terms where they are being used than to spend years of my time merely creating subsets of dictionaries that already exist. I would guess that there are several times more relationship terms used in English than appear in this glossary, which means that this glossary is just a start.

"Lexicography is de facto plagiaristic," or so it's been said.³ I'm reminded of some lines from the Danish poet, Henrik Nordbrandt^3a:

Fra bunden må jeg mase mig op

så de foregående

falder ned i formløse bylter.

Deres ansigter er væk, deres gerninger

tillæges nu mig.

(I have to elbow my way up from the bottom

so the ones who came before me

fall down in formless bundles.

Their faces are gone, their rewards

are now mine.)

Certainly I have benefited enormously from many dictionary makers who have come before me; however, I've bucked the common practice of simply incorporating from other dictionaries terms with their definitions. Generally the wording of definitions here is mine, although occasionally wording in brief form is borrowed from or is heavily influenced by sources that I have consulted.⁴ Naturally most of the terms here have been collected before, albeit in formats with different scopes.

By the way, I haven't hesitated to cannibalize a number of my own unpublished writings, including, for instance, my Glossary of the Inner Life, which covers another realm of intangibility in human life.

Using my own wording has benefits and dangers. Among the benefits: I am able to provide context, nuances, and connotations. Among the dangers: I may overlook and even distort them. Avoidance of the latter is the primary reason for borrowing the wording of another, in those rare instances where such borrowing has occurred. I am reminded of the lexicographical admission of Samuel Johnson, which is also mine, "that he, whose design includes whatever language can express, must often speak of what he does not understand."⁴

Speaking of distortion, it should be pointed out that sometimes attempting to fix a lexical definition within certain boundaries of meaning violates in some cases a sense of freedom and in other cases a sense of vagueness that some people insist upon in the application of words;⁶ and this is especially true with regard to relationship terms and the closely related set of terms having to do with sexual self-identity. Thus, with regard to the term "switch" -- "bi poly switch," "mono/poly switch," and "switch-hit" appear in this glossary -- a person may consider it his or her right to decide what that term means to him or her, especially if the term is adopted as a descriptor for self-identity. Similarly with terms like "bisexual," "in love," and "polyamorous." This "inarticulate state of mind"^6a or philosophy of subjectivity in the use of such terms poses a challenge for the lexicographer and sounds a cautionary note all around when it comes to interpreting the meaning another person intends to convey or when it comes to trying to sound authoritative with regard to the exact meaning of words. (By the way, the term for a word used to mean whatever the speaker chooses it to mean is "Humpty Dumpty word,"⁷ and the term for a counter-definition is "anthorism.")

Furthermore, some terms evoke paradigms that to some people seem illusory, artificial, or wrongheaded. A couple of cases in point:

• The set of terms that indicate relative closeness of lovers -- "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary." "How can lovers be ranked?" some say. "How can the heart be so categorized?"
• Terms having to do with sexual orientation, regarding which everything is disputed, including facts, results, and terminology, even the term "sexual orientation" itself. (By the way, such a situation can make it impossible to write a definition that everybody finds inoffensive.)
  

Just because a term appears here does not mean that the paradigm which gave rise to the term is universally accepted or above criticism. Quite the contrary, in many cases.

Much the same is true with regard to meanings. A case in point, this one affecting terms like "love" and "lover": Some make sharp distinctions between sex and love, love and friendship, and lover and friend, while others blur the lines. (For that very reason, this glossary is more inclusive than it might otherwise be.) Different paradigms often mean a recasting of sense, sometimes in subtle nuanced ways, sometimes in categorical ways; and someone operating out of one paradigm may react intensely to a meaning that emerges from another paradigm.

I have sought to avoid exclusionary biases in the writing of definitions, for example, dimorphic dyadic heterosexual statist moralistic biases. That avoidance has caused many definitions to take on a sometimes awkward "stepped back" cast. Thus, for example, instead of saying "a person of the opposite sex," the much more awkward phrase, "a person of a complementary sexual orientation," is used. However, it must also be said that much terminology used in English was born out of a culture -- or, actually, a multiplicity of cultures -- with heavy biases and so cannot be divested of those biases when one is trying to reflect accurately how terms are used. Furthermore, it would defeat the purpose of this glossary to use, in definitions, words that are not widely or easily accepted, such as epicene third person singular pronouns.⁸ Thus I have used "he or she"/"him or her" rather than, for instance, "zir"/"zie" or even the singular "they"/"them" or "'em" (what some call the "adolescent they").⁹ However, it is important to understand that "he or she" is meant to be inclusive of everybody and is not meant to reinforce a dimorphic (that is, a binary or two-sexes-only) bias. By the way, except in those rare instances where I weigh in, readers should beware of inferring too much about my particular biases and positions from the way that definitions are written; for I am deft at playing devil's advocate.

Although I have not made a systematic practice of doing so, occasionally I comment on controversies surrounding words, especially words that are considered classist, racist, or sexist by some people. From time to time this has led me to be prescriptive, which is uncomfortable for me, since:

• Philosophically I am a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist in lexicography, albeit a descriptivist who thinks it important to note prescriptivist points.
  
• I am keenly aware of how inventive people can be in their use of words and therefore how silly it often is to make blanket statements about word usage.
  
• And I am keenly aware of how off the mark other glossators have sometimes been with regard to controversial words, for instance, by arguing that a word applicable to women should be abandoned because it has no parallel for men, when in fact it does.
  

Nevertheless, such comments as I have made may help sensitize some readers to the issues.¹⁰

For the most part, the terms given here are terms used elsewhere and with definitions that reflect usage by others. Despite the length of this glossary, which now contains over nine thousand definitions, I see a crying need for many more terms than are found in English. On occasiona I have succumbed to the temptation to coin a term, a couple of examples being "koitogamy" and "synletitia." When I have done so, I have indicated that fact with a coinage note.¹¹

I also see a crying need for greater regularization of terms that already exist. The results are sometimes anomalous. Why, for instance, should there be the sort of distinction reflected between "multimate relationship" and "multipartner relationship"? And why are "triad" and "triangle" interchangeable, when they could function to distinguish two different types of relationships? However, here, trying to be prescriptive would be trepidatious in the extreme. The life of such words is not tied to this glossary.

For the time being, at least, the goal is more to cover a wide range of concepts (while keeping the distinction between term and concept firmly in mind) than to cover every term for one concept. Filling in a niche where somebody might feel a need for a term is especially satisfying for the author and will, I hope, be satisfying for the reader.

To some degree this glossary employs what lexicographers call dégroupement: rather than grouping all senses under one occurrence of a headword, breaking them up and placing them under more than one occurrence of the headword. Thus, here, a given headword will have a separate entry for each part of speech it represents, and in some cases, such as "date" and "love," a somewhat finer breakdown appears. This approach has had the surprising effect of bringing out nuances that are often overlooked. However, should I decide to cover parts of speech systematically, which thus far I have not done, I will want to revisit the issue of dégroupement.

Traditionally, lexical examples tend to be brief; but I have found that relationship terms often call for longer snippets. By their very nature such terms represent complexity, and they often evoke an intangibility or set of nuances that can be brought out only in a relatively lengthy verbal context.

Little attempt is made to give the etymology of a word or to indicate its inflections, apart from the most common and exceptional forms. Nor is any attempt made to provide systematic coverage of foreign terms, although some foreign terms that have been either more or less adopted into or on the fringes of American English or that bear a sense for which there is no word in English have been provided, including, for instance, terms in Akkadian, Algonquian, Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Greek, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Irish, Italian, Inuit, Japanese, Latin, Old English, Portuguese, Romany, Spanish, Tahitian, Yiddish, Yupik, and Zulu. Unfortunately some characters and diacritics used in transliteration could not be replicated here, and this problem affects especially Eskimoan, Greek, and Semitic terms.

On occasion quotations have been provided showing the terms used in context. The most prized contexts are generally the crucibles in which the words were coined; but, of course, those are often elusive.

Almost always quotations are provided for sayings, this to show their historical development and use. Not only is the history of many a saying difficult to track down, but knowledge of the history of a saying is often far more important for understanding and use than is knowledge of the history of a given word.

One of the useful features of this glossary is the lavish use of cross-references, which, taken together, form a chain of word clusters. Here are a few comments on references:

• Users should be aware that "see also" references may but do not usually indicate synonyms. They often indicate other words that have both some commonality and some distinction of sense.
• Where a careful distinction is in order or where a direct opposite is ofttimes paired with the word being defined, a "contrast" note is sometimes used.
• The abbreviation "q.v." (Latin quod vide = which see) is used as a cross-reference within an entry to another entry. It is most used when a word in the term being defined is being used to define it. 
• An "x" indicates a one-way reference from something else. This is mostly a housekeeping feature, but the reader may occasionaly find it of value, especially when it leads to a "see" reference that brings several terms together.
• Sometimes one entry is used to bring together a wide array of "see also" references. See, for instance, "-gamy," "kiddushim," "marriage," and "partner." And, more generally, some entries are replete with "see also" references, while closely related entries are not but only put the reader on the trail to fuller sets of "see also" references.
  
• On occasion a list of related words not included in the glossary is provided, for those who might wish to pursue a research trajectory.

In some cases, graphic illustrations of terms have been provided. It was tempting to follow whimsy in that regard, for instance, by making up cartoons. Instead I have used graphic illustrations exclusively for documentary purposes. Most of the illustrations are from postcards and sheet music.

This is just a glossary, without all the apparatus of a lexicon. However, sometimes it provides what few lexicons do, such as discussion of connotations and prejudicial language, word studies where biblical terms are involved, quotations, and an array of "see and "see also" references.

A few words on the intended audience, which is multiple:

• Love relationships are vital to almost everyone, and so I have written this glossary to be understandable by a wide audience of adults and to be serviceable in any English-speaking home. Thus, for example, when technical terms are used and their meaning in context is not obvious, I have explained them. However, I've not "dumbed down" the entries. For instance, some of the comments attending biblical entries may require the sort of concentration an attentive college student would give to a text.
  
• Some of the audience particularly in mind is a professional one. To organize roughly by historical progression: ethicists, philosophers, theologians, pastors, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, therapists, sexologists, "love gurus," and so on. As indicated above, I have especially wanted to help enable all who engage in the discipline of ethics to be more language savvy when discussing relationships.
• I'm hopeful that this glossary will serve as a seeder and spark for novelists and others who engage in a literary profession. Fiction is a natural vehicle for the exploration of relational themes; and utilization of the language of relationships, while not always essential to such exploration, often contributes to the intelligence of both the writing and the reader. Frankly I've been surprised at how few and far between are the literary works that exhibit both great relational intelligence and great adeptness in the use of the language of relationships. Four authors who come first to mind in that respect are William Shakespeare, Jane Austen, D. H. Lawrence,¹² and John Updike. Then there is also the mystery writer, Tamar Myers, whose books bristle with relationship terms. Fiction writers are forever trying to break new ground; and here, with the yet-to-be-written novels and short stories of relational intelligence, is a vast terrain before them. That is not even to mention the possibilities for poetry and song lyrics.
  
• If one studies the links to this glossary online, one will find that many people who are "into" alternative lovestyles consider this glossary to be of value to them; and I am delighted that such is the case.
• Those studying English as a second language must find it an astonishingly complex maze. I've written definitions with them in mind, that is, by bringing out nuances.
  
• Then there are also, of course, lexicographers. I am hoping that this glossary will spur them to give increased attention to relationship terms.
  

My intent is to keep growing this glossary by the addition of terms. I already have a lengthy and growing list of terms to consider adding. I also intend to continue refining the definitions and to provide more examples of usage. Suggestions are welcome.

If additional terms or definitions are suggested, it would be most helpful for sources to be cited (with page numbers or urls), the earlier the sources the better, and for quotations illustrating usage to be provided (again with precise citations if appropriate). Useful protologisms and neologisms, especially collective terms like "bundle of freemates," are welcome if accompanied by the name of the person who has coined them. Please send suggestions or any feedback you may have to my e-mail address.

I wish I could subscribe to Julia Kristeva's expression, "lexicalized, hence commonplace."¹³ But I have no such conceit with regard to my own neologisms or those of others and no such fanciful idea when it comes to the general command of extensive vocabularies. However, I have hope that the extensive vocabulary of love available to English speakers will come to be drawn upon more than it has generally been; and, besides, I am convinced of the usefulness of lexical tools for reference purposes.

A word on acknowledgments: When I have received personal help on a given definition, I give credit at that entry. However, a few other acknowledgments are in order. The first goes to my wife, Nancy, who has been supportive, forbearing, helpful, and hopeful. Another goes to Kit Barry of the Ephemera Archive for American Studies in Brattleboro, Vermont, who demonstrated to me the value of certain kinds of ephemera, such as sheet music, for illustrating terms and documenting their history. The third goes to Google Books, which has been invaluable in providing lexical examples, often examples predating those given in printed editions of The Oxford English Dictionary.

The article by Max Weatherly, quoted from at the head of this introduction, ends with this pessimistic prediction:

"And I further say that anything else [other than finding ways of saying "Love!" and "I love you!"], any other course, leads to a graveyard, a corporeal and linguistic graveyard... Oh, we aren't dead yet, I would have to admit. But if something isn't done our demise isn't very far off, as civilizations are born and killed. And if we are really headed for that great lexicon in the sky, I have a feeling we won't have left behind nearly as interesting a language as did our forebears, the ancient Greeks."¹⁴

I won't be so grandiose as to claim that a glossary such as the present one will save civilization. But it may, at least, demonstrate that the English language is worthy of comparison with both ancient Greek and modern French and Italian in its vocabulary of love -- not that the model is one of rivalry. The model, rather, is one of inheritance, sharing, and continuously simmering human creativity.

Notes
1a  The transliteration of the Sanskrit follows: Die Hymnen des .Rigveda, herausgegeben von Theodor Aufrecht (2. Auflage. Bonn: Adolf Marcus, 1877): 2. Theil, p. 364. I've made these adjustments in order to accommodate computer limitations: Instead of placing a dot under the letter, I've placed it preceding the letter, taking my cue from the transliteration scheme of  Frans Velthuis. Where Aufrecht has both a line and an acute accent over the letter "a," I've represented the letter this way: ´ā. The translation is as found in the article, "The Concept of Metalanguage and Its Indian Background," [by] Frits Staal, Journal of Indian Philosophy; v. 3 (1975): pp. [315]-354, specifically p. 322. Staal translates the entire hymn. Here is another translation: "When-men, B.rhaspati, giving names to objects, sent out Vāk's first and earliest utterances, | All that was excellent and spotless, treasured within them, was disclosed through their affection." The Hymns of the .Rgveda, translated with a popular commentary by Ralph T. H. Griffith; edited by J. L. Shastri (New revised ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973): p. 584. B.rhaspati, "Great Father," is, per John Grimes: "The deity identified with speech and intellect. He is the chief offerer of prayers and sacrifices and is represented as the priest and teacher of the gods, with whom he intercedes for human beings." Vāc (or here Vāk) is per Grimes: "word; Divine Word; logos; speech; Goddess." Hymn 10.71 is one of two hymns devoted to Vāc in the Rig Veda, the other being Hymn 10.125. See A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, [by] John Grimes (Albany: State University of New York Press, c1996): pp. 99, 334.
1b The manipulative and machiavellian but, in outlook, starkly realistic character, the Marquise de Merteuil, in the novel: Les Liaisons dangereuses, [par] Pierre Choderlos de Laclos; chronologie et préface par René Pomeau (Paris: Flammarion, c1981; in publisher's series: GF; 13): lettre 121, pp. 275-276, specifically p. 275. Originally published in Paris, 1782. For the English translation, see: Les Liaisons dangereuses, [by] Choderlos de Laclos; translated and with an introduction by P. W. K. Stone (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, 1961; in: The Penguin Classics; L116): letter 121, pp. 287-289, specifically p. 287. In both the original French and the English translation, the quotation is embedded in a larger sentence.
1c The Martyrdom of Man, by Winwood Reade; with an introduction by J. M. Robertson (London: Jonathan Cape, 1927; in: The Travellers' Library): p. 355. Originally published, 1872.
1d "Toward a Definition of Marriage," as published in: If It Be Not I: Collected Poems, 1959-1982, [by] Mona Van Duyn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993): p. 32. Originally published in The Sewanee Review; v. 61, no. 3 (July-September 1953). Originally collected in her Valentines to the Wide World: Poems ([Iowa City]: Cummington Press, 1958, c1959).
1e "The Language of Love: Wanted: Ways of Saying It," [by] Max Weatherly, in: Language in America, edited by Neil Postman, Charles Weingartner, and Terence P. Moran (Indianapolis: Pegasus, c1969): pp. 132-137, specifically p. 134.
1f The disillusioned young man to Alfred Klingman in the short story: "The Music Lover," in, The Art of Living and Other Stories, [by] John Gardner; woodcuts by Mary Azarian (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, c1981): p. 75. When it comes to love relationships, I find that the quotation is often just as true when turned around: "Actual life is rich, extravagantly rich compared with the poverty of speech." Language reflects a plethora of what has been and can be with respect to human reltionships, but some of us are more limited than others in our exploration of relationships.
1g "Introduction" to A Sacred Sex Devotional: 365 Inspiring Thoughts to Enhance Intimacy, edited by Rafael Lorenzo (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, c2000): pp. 1-5, specifically p. 1.
2 Perpetuation, it is theorized, is one effect of polyonomy. To quote from The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, [by] Arthur S. Reber (2nd ed., 1995): "In linguistics, [polyonomy is] a situation in which a language has a large number of specific terms for the various aspects of a thing... The existence of polyonomy in a particular perceptual or conceptual area reflects a particular cultural/linguistic view of the world and helps to perpetuate it within the culture." In my view this is far too simplistic a description of the relation of language to culture. For instance, in the case of relationship terms, one of the very reasons that the English language has so many is that a large number are not widely known and so new terms keep being invented for the same concepts. I would suppose that a far more impelling route with regard to social effects arises out of relationships themselves, just as Henrik Ibsen suggests in the exchange between Rector Kroll and Rebecca West in his play Rosmerholm (1886): Kroll. I would rather not go into the matter too closely. But I believe I have noticed that it is nowhere easier to break through all so-called prejudices than in -- h'm ---- Rebecca. In the relation between man and woman, you mean? Kroll. Yes, -- to speak plainly -- I think so. See Act 3, in: Eleven Plays of Henrik Ibsen, introduction by H. L. Mencken (New York: Bennett A. Cerf, Donald S. Klopfer, The Modern Library,  [1935]; in series: The Modern Library of the World's Best Books, Modern Library Giants): p. 319 (3rd group). The same point could be made with regard to same-sex relationships. For all that, I have observed recent backlash against the so-called "new terminology" on the grounds that it represents the deterioration of sexual morality. See, for example: "Polyamory: Evil Dressed as Love," [signed] Delita Johnson, The Jackson Sun (March 8, 2010), which can be found online here.
3 On lexicography as plagiaristic, see: Chasing the Sun: Dictionary Makers and the Dictionaries They Made, [by] Jonathan Green (New York: Henry Holt, 1996): p. 51. Note also the section of the Introduction, entitled "Plagiarism" (pp. 19-24).
3a From the poem "A," in: The Hangman's Lament: Poems, [by] Henrik Nordbrandt; translated from the Danish by Thom Satterlee (A bilingual ed. København & Los Angeles: Green Integer, 2003; in: The Marjorie G. Perloff Series of International Poetry): pp. 18-19.
4 To name just a smattering, among hundreds, of sources consulted for this glossary: The American Heritage, Funk and Wagnalls, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford English dictionaries; Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed., 1979); The Complete Dictionary of Sociology, Robert T. Francoeur, editor-in-chief (New expanded ed., 1995); A Dictionary of Americanisms on Historical Principles, edited by Mitford M. Matthews (1951); A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, [by] Eric Partridge (5th ed., 1961); A History of Matrimonial Institutions, by George Elliott Howard (1904); The Language of Sex from A to Z, [by] Robert M. Goldenson, Kenneth N. Anderson (1986); Lovemaps ..., [by] John Money (c1986); Manual for Kinship Analysis, [by] Ernest L. Schusky (2nd ed., c1983); Modern Dictionary of Sociology, [by] George A. Theodorson and Achilles G. Theodorson (c1969); The Polyamory Society Glossary; Shakespeare's Bawdy, [by] Eric Partridge (3rd ed., 1968); Understanding Sexual Interaction, [by] Joann S. DeLora, Carol A. B. Warren; with contributions by Carol Rinkleib and Douglas Kirby (c1977). Even while this glossary was being composed online, three other glossaries were published with scopes that are both similar to and different from the present one: The Dictionary of Love, [by] John Stark, with Will Hopkins and Mary K. Baumann (New York, NY: Avon, c2008). Useful especially for the lexical examples. 100 Words for Lovers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, c2009; in series: The 100 Words, from the editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries). Lust: A Dictionary for the Insatiable, [by] Jennifer M. Wood (Avon, Mass.: Adams Media, c2011; in series: The Deadly Dictionaries). The series covers the seven deadly sins.
5 From the second-to-the-last paragraph of the preface to A Dictionary of the English language ..., by Samuel Johnson (London: Printed by W. Strahan, for J. and P. Knapton [et al.], 1755).
6 Ambrose Bierce serves as a classic example of one who strenuously objected to the lexicographical strangling of a language. He begins his humorously pointed definition of a lexicographer this way: "A pestilent fellow who, under the pretense of recording some particular stage in the development of a language, does what he can to arrest its growth, stiffen its flexibility and mechanize its methods." He similarly defines a dictionary this way: "A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work." From: The Devil's Dictionary, [by] Ambrose Bierce (New York: Dover Publications, 1958): pp. 76, 31. Originally published in full in v. 7 (1911) of The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce (New York: Neale Publishing Co., 1909-1912). In a similarly humorous vein, Martha Cooley offers a futuristic lexical entry for indefinable in which she states: "The number of things that cannot be defined far outstrips that of things definable. Hence modern dictionaries have become more hospitable to indefinability -- more murky and quirky -- than they used to be." Included in her list of indefinable things are: beauty, most fragrances, love, and lovers' goodbyes. See the multi-author work: The Future Dictionary of America ..., [editors: Jonathan Safran Foer, et al.] (USA: McSweeney's Books, c2004): pp. [69]-70. By the way, for futuristic terms relating to relationships in that satirical dictionary, see, for example, the following (here the definitions are rewritten): blowkay - suiting the attitude that it is better that politicians have sexual dalliances than that they make decisions that unnecessarily cost lives; functions grammatically like the adjectival use of okay, as in, "Our scandalous president is blowkay with me." brother-sister - a woman's best female friend. budcat - a non-clinger. humansong - lyrics with melody designed to evince love for oneself. jigsaw theory - the genetically based view that individuals fit together as mates or don't, initially thought to point to monogamy but then questioned on that score, since each jigsaw-puzzle piece generally connects with more than one other jigsaw-puzzle piece. mailstrom - a storm of love letters. nearly-pain-free-break-up - a parting of ways with clinical help to alleviate the hurt. phatulence - gas-producing indigestion from one's own or others' preoccupation with physical beauty. Protection and Reinvigoration of Marriage Act - a federal law applicable to adults that removes various barriers to marriage with each other, such as being of the same sex. sex - its meaning collapses under the weight of too much expansion of meaning (futuristically speaking, of course). sex-ray - a weapon that makes enemies want to make love to each other. twife - a spouse that is not human. unclesayer - the spouse who gives in most. wifest - the best, as a female spouse. yidge - a person with whom one is romantically paired.
6a I'm borrowing the phrase, "an inarticulate state of mind," from the book: Conservatism from John Adams to Churchill, [by] Peter Viereck (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Co., c1956; "An Anvil Original"): p. 16. I am, of course, applying the phrase to a completely different context; and it is doubtful, although tantalizing to think, that there is a connection between the sort of conservatism of which he was speaking and those who insist upon keeping certain relationship terms either vague or so specific as to be denied any general sense.
7 The allusion is to the character Humpty Dumpty as he appears in chapter 6 of Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, by Lewis Carroll, pseudonym of Charles Dodgson (1871): "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
8 Regarding epicene pronouns, see: The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing, by Casey Miller & Kate Swift (New York: Lippincott & Crowell, c1980). Grammar and Gender, [by] Dennis Baron (New Haven: Yale University Press, c1986). The Epicene Pronouns: A Chronology of the Word That Failed, [by] Dennis Baron (January 14, 2000).
9 For declension of the third person singular in five different forms -- two native and common, one drawing upon the preceding two and common in recent decades, one native but rejected by many, and the last recently invented and much used on the Internet -- see the following chart: Third Person Singular Personal Pronouns Declined Gender Subject Object Possessive adjective Possessive pronoun Reflexive masculine he him his his himself feminine she her her hers herself neutral he/she him/her his/her his/hers him/herself neutral they them their theirs themself, theirself neutral zie zir zir zirs zirself For more, see the Gender-Neutral Pronoun FAQ (2004): §5.2, "Declension of the Major Gender-Neutral Pronouns"
10 Among the glossaries that speak to the issue of bias in language and that have been touchstones for this project, although I may frequently disagree with their authors on both facts and conclusions, are: The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage: A Guide to Nondiscriminatory Language, by Rosalie Maggio (Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press, 1991). Womanwords: A Dictionary of Words about Women, [by] Jane Mills (New York: Free Press, 1992, c1989). Besides Miller and Swift (1980), mentioned above, among the books that helped inform my thinking before this project ever began was: The Language of Canaan and the Grammar of Feminism, by Vernard Eller (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1982). Another that I have consulted now and then is: The Language of Oppression, [by] Haig A. Bosmajian (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, c1974; reprint: Lanham, MD: University Press of America, c1983). By the way, Maggio has a useful classification of terms that relate to bias in language: bias/bias-free; inclusive/exclusive; sexist/nonsexist; gender-free (or gender-neutral)/gender-fair/gender-specific; generic/pseudo-generic. To give some indication of the meaning of the two least obvious terms: "Writing or speech that is gender-fair involves the symmetrical use of gender-specific words (e.g., Ms. Leinwohl/Mr. Kelly, councilwoman/councilman, young man/young woman)." (See p. 8) A pseudogeneric is a word that is used as though it included all kinds of people or at least both sexes, but that in reality or in the perceptions of certain others does not (example: "mankind"); or it is a word that by itself appears to include all kinds of people or at least both sexes, but that in an actual usage does not (example: "those clergy permitted to have wives"). (See pp. 8-9)
11 Among the books that I've been consulting regarding neologisms are: Word-Coinage: Being an Inquiry into Recent Neologisms; also, A Brief Study of Literary Style, Slang, and Provincialisms, by Leon Mead (New York: Thomas y. Crowell, 1902; in: Handy Information Series). A Source-Book of Biological Names and Terms, [by] Edmund Jaeger; illustrations by Merle Gish and the author (2nd ed. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1950). Predicting New Words: The Secrets of Their Success, [by] Allan Metcalf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., c2002).
12 D. H. Lawrence is often regarded as a sexually preoccupied writer, and he is sometimes derided for that. To give an example, Malcolm Muggeridge speaks of "that most ridiculous of all vanities, phallic exhibitionism; D. H. Lawrence being, of course, the prize exhibitor in this field." In what I have read of Lawrence, I find him far more preoccupied with love relationships. Since he challenges moral conventions, he is often read as sexual, when he is more properly to be understood as relational. For the Muggeridge reference, see: Chronicles of Wasted Time. Chronicle 2: The Infernal Grove, by Malcolm Muggeridge (New York: William Morrow, 1974, c1973): chapter 4, p. 240.
13 Tales of Love, [by] Julia Kristeva; translated by Leon Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, c1987): section 6, chapter [2], p. 288. In the original French, the phrase is: "se lexicalisaient et donc se banalisaient." See: Histoires d'amour, [par] Julia Kristeva (Paris: Denoël, c1983): p. 269.
14 Weatherly, already cited, p. 137.

Go to report: The Theory of Human Sexuality and Marriage.

Go to main page.

 Begun, March 16, 1999; posted, July 26, 2002; new url, January 28, 2004; last modified, May 29, 2012, by NEA

Copyright ©2002-2012 by Norman Elliott Anderson