Dearest: A term of endearment?
Robert Bryan Lipton
m...@alum.mit.edu wrote in message <6s2d08$q19$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>As a term of endearment, how does "dearest" strike you? I have no problem
>with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
>uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
>literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do y'all
In a slightly prissy voice. Perhaps a lecturing tone. Me, I prefer, 'O,
best beloved'.
Bob
m...@alum.mit.edu
with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do y'all
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Charles Riggs
>As a term of endearment, how does "dearest" strike you? I have no problem
>with "sweetheart" or "honey" or "precious" or "sugar." "Dearest" makes me
>uncomfortable, however. Even if the person using the term means it
>literally, "dearest" sounds patronizing--at least to my ear. How do y'all
>hear it?
It is a different sort of word than the other four which are generally
used as nouns when directly addressing a person and are discourteous
to others when used in public, unless used in a jocular manner.
Dearest is generally used as an adjective when writing, as in "My
dearest Mary," and is more affectionate than patronizing I think. To
verbally address a person as "Dearest" is often tongue in cheek.
Charles
Perchprism
>From: m...@alum.mit.edu
>Date: 8/26/98 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6s2d08$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?
If I'm hearing it purred in my ear in the dark by Tyra Banks it sounds fine. So
much depends on context.
Perchprism
". . . further, father? That can't be right." - Groucho
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
> >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?
>
> 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
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
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
Charles Riggs
wrote:
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
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.
Podibanda Kuruppu
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:55:29 +0900, "Midori Tsuura"
> <mid...@po.cnet-ta.ne.jp> wrote:
> >
[snipped Midori's wish list of names she'd rather hear instead of "master"]
> In Hebrew, too, the woman refers to her husband as "Ba'al sheli" -- my
> master. Ghastly. This is the same 'Ba'al", BTW, of whom Jehovah was
> very, very jealous.
>
> Hebrew speakers, is any other term for "husband" coming into usage?
>
I can't speak for Hebrew speakers, but in my homeland, Sri Lanka, I have
heard women use the term "Thaththi" (father of the children, with a slight
affectionate tilt) to introduce a husband. What a non-romantic word!
However, expatriate Sri Lankans use such terms of endearment as "honey"
and "sweetie" among many others, and I'm glad to add that I'm not bombarded
by these names in my household.
If I hear this "sugar," "precious," "sweetheart," and such nonsense, I think
I'll throw up. Lack of sensibility or no romantic streak in me you say? Suits
me fine because these terms are so corny anyway. By the way, I believe that
it is the women who insist on hearing those names more than men. We men
couldn't care less how we are addressed or introduced unless one is a big
stud.
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
Podibanda Kuruppu
> On 31 Aug 1998 10:52:45 -0700, Podibanda Kuruppu <po...@nospam3com.com>
> wrote:
>
> >s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) writes:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:55:29 +0900, "Midori Tsuura"
> >> <mid...@po.cnet-ta.ne.jp> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >[snipped Midori's wish list of names she'd rather hear instead of "master"]
> >
> >> In Hebrew, too, the woman refers to her husband as "Ba'al sheli" -- my
> >> master. Ghastly. This is the same 'Ba'al", BTW, of whom Jehovah was
> >> very, very jealous.
> >>
> >> Hebrew speakers, is any other term for "husband" coming into usage?
> >>
> >
> >I can't speak for Hebrew speakers, but in my homeland, Sri Lanka, I have
> >heard women use the term "Thaththi" (father of the children, with a slight
> >affectionate tilt) to introduce a husband. What a non-romantic word!
>
> [...sugar, etc....]
>
> An Indian lady who worked at our hotel in Simla (this was probably 10
> years ago? ) told me that she was supposed to speak of her husband in
> some such ultra-respectful 3rd-person terms. She was taught that her
> husband should be revered like "God".
As though that weren't enough, in some communities in India if your
husband dies, you are supposed to set yourself on fire! I may be
stretching this a bit I will admit, but are you ladies in this
country (or anywhere else for that matter) willing to do that for the
sake of your beloved husband and master?
Hmm... On second thoughts, I better not poke fun at India now that they
have nuclear weapons at their disposal. On a lighter note, though,
whenever I get into an argument with any of my Indian colleagues, they
simply say that all they have to do is urinate in the general direction
of Sri Lanka, and my beloved island homeland will be submerged and be
history!
> She used the desired forms in front of her in-laws, but she and her
> husband together used more modern parlance. Based on some other
> generation-gap experiences I had, conversing with Indians over a month
> and many locations, I'd guess/hope that things they are a-changin',
> except perhaps in heavily-traditional village India
Much. They date, they live together, and split if they discover that the
partners are not compatible and go their separate ways.
K1912
[...]
>As though that weren't enough, in some communities in India if your
>husband dies, you are supposed to set yourself on fire! I may be
>stretching this a bit I will admit, but are you ladies in this
>country (or anywhere else for that matter) willing to do that for the
>sake of your beloved husband and master?
>
>
Still? Isn't suttee now illegal in India?
gk
K1912
Podibanda Kuruppu
I believe so. Anyone from India care to confirm or elaborate?
Jesse the K
<po...@nospam3com.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
> heard women use the term "Thaththi" (father of the children, with a slight
> affectionate tilt) to introduce a husband. What a non-romantic word!
[...snip...]
I often hear this as a very friendly term of address among older
Wisconsinites. My in-laws referred to each other in family settings as
"Mother" and "Father." They got into the habit while raising four kids,
and it stuck. Don't know what they said in their rare moments of privacy.
Raising a family is romantic at the beginning, at least.
--
Jesse the K -- Madison Wisconsin USA
Where am I going, and how did I get in this handbasket?
Charles Riggs
<mid...@po.cnet-ta.ne.jp> 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. 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
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.
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
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.
K1912
[...]
>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.
>
>
"Some flak" might be a bit of an understatement. Speak your mind, by all
means, Charles, but I think you might be well-advised to wear a protective
helmet while doing so.
Marriage, _n_. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a
mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.--Ambrose Bierce
gk
K1912
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)