RE: [HoB/D] Unique union

[Louie Crew <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>]

Alas, for poor Dr. Jensen:  as he already anticipates, dictionaries are not
prepared by God nor by cultural arbiters, but by linguists committed to a
careful description of the language as actually used by respected writers in
widely read publications.

Thirty years ago, I complained to D. Guralnik, Editor of Webster's New World
Dictionary, that his   dictionary gave to the word "gay" no meaning of
"homosexual." I asked whether he had gone out the business of reporting real
usage by respected writers.

"No," replied Dr. Guralinik. He suggested that I should buy a more recent
edition, the preparation for which his dictionary had accumulated several
citations of my own usage of "gay" in professional journals as a part of its
evidence.  Robin Green reported this correspondence in "Straightening Out
the Word 'Gay',"  [Toronto] September 11, 1978: 8.

Perhaps I should buy a new edition yet again, for surely any good dictionary
will soon have to reflect the broader definition of "marriage" as written
about in Massachusetts, in Holland, .....

I agree with Dr. Jensen that we should value what happens when two people
publicly promise each other to live in lifelong and exclusive relationship,
"in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others so long as you both
shall live."  Ernest and I rejoice that ++Peter and Christine have
undertaken the same awesome commitment we have, and we wish them all the
best in living into those vows, with God's help.

We don't need a new word for these unions, nor should we distract from them
by inspecting the plumbing.

Louie, Newark L1
Louie Crew, 377 S. Harrison St., 12d, East Orange, NJ 07018.  973-395-1068
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew


-----Original Message-----

++Peter Jensen | *May 08, 2008*
**

*
*

*I DID something really odd the other day. I looked up the dictionary
definition of marriage, just to make sure that my understanding was not too
off-line. I was relieved to find that it is called the legal union of a man
with a woman for life. It is a public, lifelong and exclusive relationship.
There is no hint in the dictionary that the word can extend to two men or
two women in a public, lifelong and exclusive relationship.*

Of course, dictionaries change to mirror the times, and governments do all
sorts of things with words, but changing the definition of marriage would be
as fatuous as declaring that Perth is Sydney or that the moon is made of ice
cream. We would then need a new word to describe the reality that occurs
when a man and a woman publicly promise each other to live in lifelong and
exclusive relationship, "in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others
so long as you both shall live".
read it all at:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23661803-7583,00.html