Dearest: A term of endearment?
Robert Bryan Lipton
m...@alum.mit.edu wrote in message <6s2d08$q19$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>As a term of endearment, how does "dearest" strike you? I have no problem
>with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
>uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
>literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do y'all
In a slightly prissy voice. Perhaps a lecturing tone. Me, I prefer, 'O,
best beloved'.
Bob
m...@alum.mit.edu
with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do y'all
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Charles Riggs
>As a term of endearment, how does "dearest" strike you? I have no problem
>with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
>uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
>literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do y'all
>hear it?
It is a different sort of word than the other four which are generally
used as nouns when directly addressing a person and are discourteous
to others when used in public, unless used in a jocular manner.
Dearest is generally used as an adjective when writing, as in "My
dearest Mary," and is more affectionate than patronizing I think. To
verbally address a person as "Dearest" is often tongue in cheek.
Charles
Serenleono
>To verbally address a person as "Dearest" is often tongue in cheek.
I suppose it is *sometimes* used jocularly, yes, but I don't recall
ever using it that way myself. In fact, "dearest" is my favourite
endearment for my wife, and I use it often (or an equivalent like
*carissima*), but always sincerely and respectfully. Belovéd and
dearheart are other favourites.
"Sweetheart", "honey", "precious", and "sugar", on the other hand,
give me the wiggins. To my mind (and in my mouth), at least, they are
just too mawkish or saccharine. But, as with all endearments, it's
purely a matter of taste what sounds and suits best.
Seren
janelaw
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 01:32:56 GMT, m...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
>
> >As a term of endearment, how does "dearest" strike you? I have no problem
> >with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
> >uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
> >literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do y'all
> >hear it?
>
> It is a different sort of word than the other four which are generally
> used as nouns when directly addressing a person and are discourteous
> to others when used in public, unless used in a jocular manner.
>
Y'all aren't from the south, are yuh, sugar?
Raymot
>
>Dearest is generally used as an adjective when writing, as in "My
>dearest Mary," and is more affectionate than patronizing I think. To
>verbally address a person as "Dearest" is often tongue in cheek.
>
>Charles
The use of "My Dearest Mary" in writing has the potential
drawback of implantng the idea that one has at least one
other Mary.
I've found it best to avoid.
Raymot
======
Brisbane, Australia
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Patronius
famous-actress mother)--where "dearest" was evidently sarcastic in the
bitterest way.
Chris Norton
m...@alum.mit.edu wrote in article <6s2d08$q19$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> As a term of endearment, how does "dearest" strike you? I have no
problem
> with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
> uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
> literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do
y'all
> hear it?
Dearest - Old-fashioned but okay.
Sweetheart is patronizing
Honey/Sugar is just tacky ( but then I'm English)
Precious just sounds odd - archaic rather than just old-fashioned.
Chris
Serenleono
>Precious just sounds odd - archaic rather than just old-fashioned.
There are simply too many poodles in the world named Precious for me
to use this endearment in good conscience. I always feel as though
I'm calling the lady "Pooch". And as passionately opposed to
maritodespotism as I am, I prefer to fetch my own slippers. ;-)
Seren
Patronius
>problem
>> with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes
me
>> uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
>> literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do
>y'all
>> hear it?
>
>Dearest - Old-fashioned but okay.
>Sweetheart is patronizing
>Honey/Sugar is just tacky ( but then I'm English)
I think it has a lot to do with where "dearest" falls in the sentence. As the
salutation to a letter (e.g., "Dearest Angela, . . ."), I think it sounds
old-fashioned but nice. But in a spoken sentence (e.g., "Are you ready,
Dearest? It's time to go.") it sounds just plain old-fashioned or dialectical.
"Sweetheart" (or "Sweetie"), "Precious," "Honey," and "Sugar" might all sound
patronizing or old-fashioned if uttered by a (probably elderly) grocery clerk
to a customer. But lover-to-lover, any of them could be OK. I consider it a
term of endearment when my wife calls me "Sweetie" or "Cutie"; but then it
irritates the heck out of me when I hear her use the same terms to a friend on
the phone. Luckily for me, we have a special form of "Sweetie" that we
sometimes use for one another and no one else.
To call someone "Precious" (as a pet name) sounds terribly old-fashioned and a
bit strange (it reminds me of the character in Tolkien's "The Hobbit" who's
always after "My Precious"--the magic ring). But when in a romantic mood, I've
sometimes said to my wife, "You're precious" or "You're precious to me."
Corny, perhaps--but in the right context, with the right look in the eye, it
works.
JUST AN H
>Sweetheart is patronizing
>Honey/Sugar is just tacky ( but then I'm English)
>Precious just sounds odd - archaic rather than just old-fashioned.
>
I like (and use) "dearest," but only in written salutations to dear friends.
"Dearest" in spoken form sounds too much like something an elderly spinster
would use to address her maiden grand-niece.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>"Chris Norton" <chr...@uk.uu.net> scripsit:
>
>>Precious just sounds odd - archaic rather than just old-fashioned.
>
>There are simply too many poodles in the world named Precious for me
>to use this endearment in good conscience. I always feel as though
>I'm calling the lady "Pooch". And as passionately opposed to
>maritodespotism as I am, I prefer to fetch my own slippers. ;-)
>
>Seren
I'd say there were too many poodles in the world period, full stop. By
the way what is maritodespotism? If it's what I think and you coined
it, wouldn't maritaldespotism be a better spelling?
Charles
JUST AN H
>the way what is maritodespotism? If it's what I think and you coined
>it, wouldn't maritaldespotism be a better spelling?
>
>Charles
Off what side of the bed did you tumble this morning, Charles?
Charles Riggs
Right side again. Some people are dog people, I'm a cat man. Dog
people like hot dogs and rock and roll, cat people like vegetables and
classical music.
Charles
Waldo
[...]
>Dialectical?
>
>I was struck by your use of this word because my initial reaction was,
>How can a single word be dialectical. Then I thought, maybe he meant
>to say that it sounds like dialect.
i.e. Dialectal
>
>Off to the dictionary to try to fill in a gap in my understanding,
>viz., why do these two words have such different meanings? Do they
>share the same root? And I still don't know. The OED gives for
>"dialect" L. dialectus, from a Greek word I obviously can't type
>here but which would transliterate as dialektos. For "dialectic",
>it gives OF dialectique from L. dialectica from Greek (transliterating
>again) [the] dialektike (that final "e" represents an aspirated eta).
>
>Any classical scholars out there who can explain the relationship
>between these two words?
>
I make no claims to be a classical scholar but dialektike is the
feminine form of dialektikos, an adjective and dialektos "debate,
conversation," is the noun. The infinitive is dialegesthai "to
converse."
--
Waldo
Midori Tsuura
I am a Japanese and I major in English at university. One thing I find
interesting about English is that you can call a person "sweetheart",
"sugar", "honey", "precious" and even "love". It's so amazing because we
never call a person "sugar". I'd loved to be called "sugar". It souds so
sweet. I'd loved to be called "dearest", too. Even "dear" sounds so
sweet, but oh, "dearest"! It's in the superlative degree! Whenever called
"dearest", I could feel that I am the most precious person in the world to
somebody. So, to me, it doesn't matter whether to be called "sweetheart" or
"dearest", as long as I can feel that I am loved. In Japanese, when a wife
introduces her husband, she says, "This is my master" as if she were his
slave or something. It's so fixed in daily lives that nobody feels strange
about it. I think it's terrible. I wish we had such terms as "honey" or
"dearest" in our language, too.
Patronius
>>>Charles
>>>
>>Off what side of the bed did you tumble this morning, Charles?
>
>Right side again. Some people are dog people, I'm a cat man. Dog
>people like hot dogs and rock and roll, cat people like vegetables and
>classical music.
>Charles
Dogs give demonstrative, unconditional love to their masters (& don't even
object to their considering themselves "masters"). Cats keep their distance
and expect proper care and feeding from the humans they deign to live with.
Guess I lean a bit toward the dog side myself. But as to poodles . . . well,
definitely not my favorite dog. I might prefer a cat to a poodle.
--Patrick
Serenleono
>By the way what is maritodespotism?
The ruthless, tyrannical behaviour of a husband intent upon dominating
his wife. The equivalent behaviour by a wife is uxorodespotism.
>If it's what I think and you coined it, wouldn't maritaldespotism
>be a better spelling?
No, I didn't coin the term. And while "marital despotism" (two words)
would suit me well enough for describing the actions of a domineering
spouse (of either gender), I don't agree that maritaldespotism (as one
word) would be in any way more appropriate, correct, or elegant than
the existing maritodespotism. Use of the "-o-" connective vowel is a
tried and true method for joining word elements ("-i-" is another),
and I see no reason to avoid it here.
Other examples:
stethoscope
astrology
hypnopompic
Graeco-Roman
Anglo-Saxon
maritorious
holophrastic
Seren
Charles Riggs
I would find it offensive to be called "dearest", but a society where
the wife introduces her husband as "my master" sounds grand to me. For
hundreds of years in the Western world it was entirely clear who the
dominant figure was in marriage. Now I'm all for women having the
vote, but the increase of emphasis on feminine equality has coincided
with the rise in marital strife and in the divorce rate. I know I'll
catch some flak on this, but it seems to me that a successful
relationship between any two people requires that one of them takes
the leadership position. If the man says we're going to the beach and
the woman says we're going shopping the man or the woman needs to be
in the position that he or she can say "No, this is what we are going
to do" without it causing offense to the other person, which would be
the case if both thought they were of equal authority when decision
times come about. I'm in trouble now, but that's what I think.
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Good points. I couldn't find it in my dictionary so thought you might
have coined it. I need a better dictionary I guess.
Charles
janelaw
>
> Patronius (patr...@aol.com) wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > I think it has a lot to do with where "dearest" falls in the sentence. As the
> > salutation to a letter (e.g., "Dearest Angela, . . ."), I think it sounds
> > old-fashioned but nice. But in a spoken sentence (e.g., "Are you ready,
> > Dearest? It's time to go.") it sounds just plain old-fashioned or dialectical.
> >
>
>
> I was struck by your use of this word because my initial reaction was,
> How can a single word be dialectical. Then I thought, maybe he meant
> to say that it sounds like dialect.
>
> viz., why do these two words have such different meanings? Do they
> share the same root? And I still don't know. The OED gives for
> "dialect" L. dialectus, from a Greek word I obviously can't type
> here but which would transliterate as dialektos. For "dialectic",
> it gives OF dialectique from L. dialectica from Greek (transliterating
> again) [the] dialektike (that final "e" represents an aspirated eta).
>
> Any classical scholars out there who can explain the relationship
> between these two words?
>
> Ellen Mizzell
I am not a classicist, nor do I play one on tv. Oddly enough, I
do have a bachelor's degree in classical studies, though. I
almost minored in linguistics, too. The following is my guess
on the etymology.
Patronius used "dialectical" to mean "characteristic of a
specific dialect." A linguist may have used "dialectal," but
that doesn't mean you have to.
In ancient greek dialegesthai (pardon the transliteration) meant
"to converse." The "dia-" prefix can translate as either
"between" or "against" in different words. The two meanings of
the adjective "dialectical" descend from the different paths
that the original word took. Speech "between" (don't flame me,
I know it's "among") people who follow the same patterns of
usage is called a "dialect". Logic reasoning developed through
a process of argument (Socrates, Plato, etc.) or speaking
"against" each other. This is where we got "dialectic."
"Dialectical" is used to mean "pertaining to or characteristic
of" either a dialect or a dialectic. So the meanings end up
quite different.
janelaw
>
> On 28 Aug 1998 11:45:50 GMT, "Chris Norton" <chr...@uk.uu.net> wrote:
>
> >Dearest - Old-fashioned but okay.
> >Sweetheart is patronizing
> >Honey/Sugar is just tacky ( but then I'm English)
>
> Whatever works....
>
"Studly" works well at my house.
janelaw
Precisely what I would expect from a cat man.
janelaw
>
> I am a Japanese and I major in English at university. One thing I find
> interesting about English is that you can call a person "sweetheart",
> "sugar", "honey", "precious" and even "love". It's so amazing because we
> never call a person "sugar". I'd loved to be called "sugar". It souds so
> sweet. I'd loved to be called "dearest", too. Even "dear" sounds so
> sweet, but oh, "dearest"! It's in the superlative degree! Whenever called
> "dearest", I could feel that I am the most precious person in the world to
> somebody. So, to me, it doesn't matter whether to be called "sweetheart" or
> "dearest", as long as I can feel that I am loved. In Japanese, when a wife
> introduces her husband, she says, "This is my master" as if she were his
> slave or something. It's so fixed in daily lives that nobody feels strange
> about it. I think it's terrible. I wish we had such terms as "honey" or
> "dearest" in our language, too.
Well, Sugar, I think you should start a trend. How would you
say these words in Japanese? Do a lot of study abroad in an
English-speaking country. Then people will just take it as a
sign of your fluency in this language. Is there an alternative
form of "husband" in Japanese that does not mean "master?" I
sometimes refer to my husband as my spouse or my mate. These
words are not gender-specific.
janelaw
Waldo
>I would find it offensive to be called "dearest", but a society where
>the wife introduces her husband as "my master" sounds grand to me.
How long did you say you've been married?
> For
>hundreds of years in the Western world it was entirely clear who the
>dominant figure was in marriage. Now I'm all for women having the
>vote, but the increase of emphasis on feminine equality has coincided
>with the rise in marital strife and in the divorce rate.
Women realise that they don't have to put up with being second class
citizens just because their mothers were, if that results in more
divorces, good.
>I know I'll
>catch some flak on this, but it seems to me that a successful
>relationship between any two people requires that one of them takes
>the leadership position.
It seems to me that a successful relationship has to be based on
equality & mutual respect. A 'decision' that doesn't have the support
of both parties is doomed.
>If the man says we're going to the beach and
>the woman says we're going shopping the man or the woman needs to be
>in the position that he or she can say "No, this is what we are going
>to do" without it causing offense to the other person, which would be
>the case if both thought they were of equal authority when decision
>times come about.
So if my wife wants to go shopping and I want to go to the beach I
should explain to her, for the good of our marriage, that she does not
have equal authority and she'd better start making the picnic.
Do you think that either of us are going to have a nice day?
Better ideas are:
One of us *persuades* the other. The beach weather forecast is better
tomorrow.
We do both - quick shop & on to the beach or vice versa.
She goes shopping, I go to the beach.
We say screw both and go bowling instead.
What we don't do is say, "This is my decision and you have no right to
disagree."
>I'm in trouble now, but that's what I think.
>
You will be Charles, you will be.
--
Waldo
Pk2222
maker, incited Jane to write:
>Precisely what I would expect from a cat man.
but I wonder whether he's really a Promise Keeper in disguise!
pk
Serenleono
[re: maritodespotism]
>I couldn't find it in my dictionary so thought you might
>have coined it. I need a better dictionary I guess.
Actually, Charles, you shouldn't feel bad: it's not in any of mine
either, including the unabridged Wester 3.
But I swear I didn't carve it from air. I really couldn't say where I
first read it, though it was many years ago -- perhaps in an 18th- or
19th-century novel(?).
Seren
Henry Tickner
>As a term of endearment, how does "dearest" strike you? I have no problem
>with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
>uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
>literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do y'all
>hear it?
Slightly off-topic perhaps: whenever I hear the term, I'm reminded of a
passage in C S Forester's 'Hornblower in the West Indies'. The hero
receives a letter addressed to 'My Dearest Husband'; he reflects on the
unintended implication that his wife has at least two other husbands,
but consoles himself that even if it were so he is at least the most
beloved.
--
Henry Tickner
The 'nospam' is my ISP's domain, the 'boudoir' is mine.
JUST AN H
>object to their considering themselves "masters"). Cats keep their distance
>and expect proper care and feeding from the humans they deign to live with.
>
>
I'm a dog and cat man and have one of each and love them both. I agree that
dogs give unconditional love to their masters, but the reason they don't object
to submitting to their masters is that modern dogs are still governed by an
age-old "pack" mentality. They see their masters (both men and women alike) as
"leader of the pack." Most people do well as a leader (i.e., by taking charge
and "barking" orders when a dog becomes errant) and thus have marvelously
well-behaved dogs. Others, however, aren't such good leaders. Instead of
"barking" when the dog acts up, they plead with it (as though afraid to come
across as "abusive"), and then cannot understand why little "Precious" yaps
incessantly and pisses on the carpet.
Cats might be aloof from time to time -that's their instinct and thus, their
right- but they still see their human masters as surrogate mothers. The more a
man or woman "mothers" a cat (by feeding it regularly, petting it, scratching
it and welcoming it into the lap or into the bed), the less aloof kitty
becomes.
Petibacsi
Dog: Humans! They feed me, protect me, entertain me, take care of me. They must
be gods!
Cat: Humans! ! They feed me, protect me, entertain me, take care of me. I must
be god.
Peti
Charles Riggs
Actually, I was droning on about how a successful pairing requires a
decision maker: either sex will do. It's generally in man's nature to
be more decisive than women so he normally gets the job.
Charles
Charles Riggs
<Wa...@the-bunker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Charles Riggs <ri...@anu.ie> wrote
>
>>I would find it offensive to be called "dearest", but a society where
>>the wife introduces her husband as "my master" sounds grand to me.
>
>How long did you say you've been married?
Just my point. Now if she'd called me "her master", how much longer it
might have lasted ! My earlier post was semi-serious by the way. If a
person accepts their position in society, as women did for thousands
of years, no conflict exists in their minds and they can be happy and
concern themselves with more important things than who in the family
makes decisions.
Charles
Pk2222
<love that name - IIRC, it means "man of the common people">
>If a
>person accepts their position in society, as women did for thousands
>of years, no conflict exists in their minds and they can be happy and
>concern themselves with more important things than who in the family
>makes decisions.
If a person accepted his or her position in society......we'd all be *sheep*
and isn't becoming human the point of intellectual, physical, psychological and
spiritual development?
If a woman accepted her position in Irish or Samoan society (at least in an
ancient one), she just might *be* leading a family, a village or a militia. In
the eight to tenth centuries, it was legal and common for women to maintain
their own names and property - before *and* after marriage. 'Twasn't till the
English meddled that marriage or property laws changed in Erie. Same was true
for the Iraquois and Algonquin tribes of Native Americans.
I speak only for myself when I say that I make my own place in the world. I
also work hard to make it in concert with the needs of my husband and children,
my parents and friends.
Rest assured, there was an awful lot of unrest in those "thousands of years" of
which you speak.
pk
ps: Are you *sure* you haven't been to a PK session? :-)))
janelaw
Ellen Mizzell wrote:
>
> janelaw (jan...@excite.com) wrote:
> >
> > I am not a classicist, nor do I play one on tv. Oddly enough, I
> > do have a bachelor's degree in classical studies, though. I
> > almost minored in linguistics, too. The following is my guess
> > on the etymology.
> >
> > Patronius used "dialectical" to mean "characteristic of a
> > specific dialect." A linguist may have used "dialectal," but
> > that doesn't mean you have to.
>
> <grimace> Certainly doesn't.
>
> >
> > In ancient greek dialegesthai (pardon the transliteration) meant
> > "to converse." The "dia-" prefix can translate as either
> > "between" or "against" in different words. The two meanings of
> > the adjective "dialectical" descend from the different paths
> > that the original word took. Speech "between" (don't flame me,
> > I know it's "among") people who follow the same patterns of
> > usage is called a "dialect". Logic reasoning developed through
> > a process of argument (Socrates, Plato, etc.) or speaking
> > "against" each other. This is where we got "dialectic."
> >
> > "Dialectical" is used to mean "pertaining to or characteristic
> > of" either a dialect or a dialectic. So the meanings end up
> > quite different.
>
> A lucid and convincing explanation. Thanks.
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
janelaw
>
> ...It's generally in man's nature to
> be more decisive than women so he normally gets the job.
>
> Charles
Good lord, Charles, I am biting my tongue so hard it's bleeding.
Jane
decision-maker extraordinaire
Charles Riggs
Hello pk,
>Oh, my dearest Charles!
>
><love that name - IIRC, it means "man of the common people">
I'd head it meant that, but what please is IIRC?
>>If a
>>person accepts their position in society, as women did for thousands
>>of years, no conflict exists in their minds and they can be happy and
>>concern themselves with more important things than who in the family
>>makes decisions.
>
>If a person accepted his or her position in society......we'd all be *sheep*
>and isn't becoming human the point of intellectual, physical, psychological and
>spiritual development?
I agree completely. What I was trying to express is that there are
some things in life that are best to simply accept and to not beat
one's head against the wall trying to change them. I'm getting far
afield from the subject of good English usage so I won't go on for
now.
Charles
Pk2222
IIRC = "If I recall correctly". I used it because I couldn't bear to butcher an
adverb phrase. I s'pose it goes down in the books with IMHO, etc.
We *were* off the topic, but it *was* amusing!
Cheers!
pk
<who accepts almost *nothing* at face value!>
JUST AN H
>person accepts their position in society, as women did for thousands
>of years, no conflict exists in their minds and they can be happy and
>concern themselves with more important things than who in the family
>makes decisions.
I think the only woman in history who accepted a position imposed upon her by
society was June Cleaver. And where did that get her? She may not have had
any friends, but she did get to vacuum the house while wearing a dress, high
heels and pearls. (Probably faux pearls.)
Contrary to popular belief, "Leave it to Beaver" was not a documentary, and
June was able ditch the pearls and "the Beaver" when that television series
ended.
Earle Jones
(Raymot) wrote:
>In article <35e8e68c....@news.anu.ie>, ri...@anu.ie says...
>>
>
>>Dearest is generally used as an adjective when writing, as in "My
>>dearest Mary," and is more affectionate than patronizing I think. To
>>verbally address a person as "Dearest" is often tongue in cheek.
>>
>>Charles
>
>The use of "My Dearest Mary" in writing has the potential
>drawback of implantng the idea that one has at least one
>other Mary.
>I've found it best to avoid.
--
If one has only one other Mary (total of two) is the proper salutation:
My Dearer Mary:
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and
the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and
even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with
certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful
for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things,
claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all
that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever
see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)