Dear Hasbeen,

Such is life.

But at least the memories have lasted a lifetime.
(sigh).

G'day Banjo? "words normally do not change their meaning…" Really?

I hope you're not inextricably married to that concept?

Maybe you've spent too much time recently on your computer (Oops there's a third - used to mean a person who calculated) surfing (Oops a fourth - verb not now requiring the ocean) the web (Oops a fifth - where did the spider go) to notice the reality is the exact opposite.

Then there are calques and true and false cognates to worry about, let alone the insistence of teenagers around the world to talk nonsense.

Words are constantly changing their meaning (and from your examples their spelling also) through usage - what does vary is the timeframe - which is why we don't speak Proto-Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian or Afroasiatic.

None of which of course means that we wish language wouldn't…

To the point, personally I like espousal since it allows for the gender neutral and single syllable reference to one's spouse.

But maybe this is too fricative for some to get their tongue around to be comfortable?

Dear Banjo,

You can disagree about words all you like.
It doesn't make you right. What you need to
do is Google - the origin of words and names.

Just to give you a few examples:

1) Artificial - originally meant "full of artistic or
technical skill." Today its meaning has a very
different slant.

2)Nice - comes from the Latin "not to know."
Originally a "nice person" was someone who was
ignorant or unaware.

3) Awful - used to mean - "full of awe." That is,
something wonderful, delightful, amazing. Over time
it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.

4) Counterfeit - once meant a "perfect copy."
Now it means anything but.

5) Tell - originally meant "to count."
Hence the term - "bank teller."

And so on.

Words are quite interesting - but they do change over
time - and whether you like it or not - that's a fact!
If you do bother to look up some of their origins on
the web - you may even learn where "orange," came from.

As for "marriage," as I stated earlier - at some point
in the future - it will no longr be necessary to
clarify what kind of union is under discussion and
as the institution of marriage (the various forms) are
changing - so will the word itself - where the various
forms of marriage will simply be referred to as "marriage."
Time and evidence will bear this out. You can protest
all you like - changes will continue to happen despite
you.

Things change no one denies that, words adapt to new realities. But natures remain; personal identity remains as we grow and change we don't become essentially someone else. Apple meant just heirloom varieties, now fuji, gala etc but appleness remains. Humans only came in black years ago now they can be white, but human nature, humanness remains. Marriage has had different erotic, religious, social and political implications but men, women, procreation and child rearing remain. And will remain after modern liberal nation states have dissolved into dysfunctionality.

No one blames a governing class for at least TRYING to arrogate to itself control of marriage and the male-female sexual relationship, or the power to define nature. The more it stakes a claim to aspects of human life the more powerful and indispensable they make themselves. This is as natural to governments as men and women marrying and raising children. To say it is 'rear guard' to make these simple points against claims by the political class is just to say tyranny has made large headway.

Latest polls in England and recent MP electorate survey in Australia showed at least 70% against abolishing marriage. It would be pretty discriminatory to make everyone's marriage a gay 'marriage' by redefining it as two genderless adults. And keeping it to to two is even more exclusionary if male/female/procreation is thought mere prejudice. What of muslim polygamy? polyandrous 3's,4's, groups? 'bigots', 'haters' 'equal love' ? Resistance 'rear guard' too?

No. Of gays (1% of the population), only a tiny fraction actually want (or are stupid enough) to legally submit to marriage laws. They are useful tools of the political class nothing more. They'll quite happily let them squabble over the dregs of an evacuated institution. They feel quite chuffed that people think their freedom and autonomy has to be mediated by them. They'll certainly cast homosexuals aside when, with this new omnipotence and nature creating power, find them a small and unnecessary group - perhaps after a Weimar type change of political scene.

I disagree Prialprang. This truly has been a marvelous string/thread, of infinite jest and most excellent fancy.
For better or worse, if it wasn't for Online, it really could have quickly descended into catcalls and spittle, so often the case in matters surrounding this topic.
Thanks to the likes of Pearson, Conrad and Online, it is possible to make reasoned headway.
Change is inevitable, both happily and sadly.

Lexi,

given your examples of words altering meaning, marriage in future will probably come to mean the exact opposite ... don't you think?

Good god hasbeen ... do you realise you've raised your son to fall in love with a boat and worse ... her big Spanish sister ... la mar. I hope you've told him of the dangers of el Hornes.