j4: (kanji)
[personal profile] j4
A one-question poll to start the week. No quibbling: how you interpret the question is part of the point. It's just something I've been thinking about, & I'm interested to see what the wisdom (or otherwise) of LiveJournal has to say.

[Poll #963593]

Edited to add: I was trying not to influence the answers by over-explaining the question, but perhaps I went too far in the opposite direction: so, just to clarify, I'm talking about interpersonal relationships rather than the abstract concept of the-state-of-relatedness-or-otherwise-of-things-to-other-things.

Date: 2007-04-10 02:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] j4.livejournal.com
I was thinking of romantic/sexual relationships (and yes, the subject line does give that away), but couldn't think of a good word for them, and decided to just see what people would assume. :-) I mean, it wasn't a trick question, as such, but I was interested to see how people would interpret it without any explanation/clarification.

Date: 2007-04-10 02:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com
I'm aware that this is (or is becoming?) the predominant sense in which people use the word, but I'm a) antipathic to this in principle, b) pedantic, and c) generally ornery.

Date: 2007-04-10 02:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] j4.livejournal.com
Is there a single word or phrase which people could use for interpersonal-alliances-or-understandings-which-are-likely-to-be-(or-be-interpreted-by-others-as-being)-of-a-romantic-or-sexual-nature
to avoid irritating you?

To be honest, the-abstract-concept-of-relationships-between-things is not something I'm likely to find myself talking about very often, and I suspect I'm not alone in that bias. I also suspect that trying to persuade people to use longer disambiguating terms for the things that they talk about all the time, and reserve the shorter words/phrases for things they never talk about, is a bit of a lost cause.

Date: 2007-04-10 02:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com
I use "relationship" quite happily to mean "interpersonal relationship". I prefer "romantic relationship" for the case that you describe.

Date: 2007-04-10 02:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] j4.livejournal.com
Do you think context makes any difference here? If I talked about "my relationship with Owen", for instance, would I have to specify "my romantic relationship with Owen" or would the fact that O & I are, in the popular parlance, "going out with each other" fulfil the same disambiguating function there? Or is it less about disambiguating and more about an irritating with society's assumptions about relationships-in-the-broadest-sense-of-the-word?

And... if it's not a rude question... do you find that you're less irritated by the use of "relationship" to mean "romantic relationship" when you're in a "romantic relationship" yourself?

Date: 2007-04-10 03:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com
Hmm. I know you and Owen are in a romantic relationship - if you spoke about this I'd take it for granted. The antipathy is, as you say, largely based on my dislike of the assumption that non-romantic relationships are so much inferior things. I realise that this asssumption isn't implicit in the way you're using the word, though, and I'll admit that "friendship" is a pretty useful word for many relationships.

The latter question - I don't know. I think possibly less irritated but still not happy about it.

Date: 2007-04-10 03:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] j4.livejournal.com
I certainly don't mean to imply that non-romantic relationships are inferior to romantic relationships. And if I was going to start being ornery I'd be objecting to the implication that "romantic" and "non-romantic" was the only sensible line along which to divide one's relationships.

But it's apples and oranges, innit. Are apples inferior/superior to oranges? I'd venture to suggest that mouldy apples are inferior to non-mouldy oranges, but that may not apply if you really don't like oranges, though in that case the question's probably a bit pointless.

My original question was intended to be open-ended: there wasn't a "right" answer.

Date: 2007-04-11 07:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] keirf.livejournal.com
Apples are better. This is a fact. They don't need peeling before you eat them, and you can turn them into cider.

Date: 2007-04-11 08:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] j4.livejournal.com
But you can actually eat orange peel, or use the zest in cakes and stuff, or make it into candied peel, whereas apple skin is just something to make your gums bleed when it gets stuck between your teeth.

Also, whoever heard of duck à la pomme? That'd clearly be rubbish.

Date: 2007-04-12 09:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] keirf.livejournal.com
Duck a la pomme. Mmmm.

Date: 2007-04-12 05:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rysmiel.livejournal.com
By a curious coincidence, a roast duck with apples, potatoes and carrots roasted in the same tin in the fat coming off it was what I had for dinner last night. It was delicious.

Then again, I don't like oranges much.

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2025 07:21 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios