Married want real sex Merriam

Added: Evann Borton - Date: 01.08.2021 05:10 - Views: 40611 - Clicks: 6578

It was Friday, morning-break time, and I was not just tired; I was beat, wiped, whipped, laid out, done in, dead. Usually during morning break, I got up for a bit of a stretch, walked around, refilled my coffee. I was working from home at the time and sometimes indulged in a little wander around my yard—a hard reset before I got back to work. Today, however, I had ignored the nice weather and instead put my head on my desk, forehead pressed to the Formica and arms covering my skull.

My current pose was called Nuclear Fallout. It had been two weeks of workplace hell. I was attempting some deep, yogic breaths facedown on my desk—not the ideal positionintently listening to the sounds of my home office: the bone creak of the house corner being pushed by wind, the borborygmus 1 rumble of a delivery truck idling outside, that goddamned mockingbird that had built a nest in the eaves right outside my office and was currently doing the Top 40 Birdcalls of North America on repeat.

In a few minutes, I heard my program bing, then bing again. I turned my head and peeped out from under my arm; Peter had sent me a link to a video, followed by about 15 exclamation points. I ducked my head back under my arm and tried to be as Zen as possible, but curiosity got the better of me. Not after the last two weeks. But the screen had frozen at an odd point, and I felt slightly uncomfortable staring at a grimacing Stephen Colbert. I relented. I slid my glasses up to the top of my head and rubbed my face vigorously.

My forehead throbbed where I had been pressing it to my desk. The segment was only three minutes long, but I devoted the rest of my break to it, then wandered—a changed woman—out of my office and into the house. My husband was sitting at the dining room table, headphones on, scribbling out a horn arrangement. I stood next to him until I had his attention. I smiled incandescently, radiant; my face was damp with tears; the world smelled beatifically of roses. He raised an Married want real sex Merriam in expectation. We know this bit of behavioral trivia not because this is innate knowledge lexicographers have about how people interact with their dictionaries but because of Internet comments.

The one thing that is most striking about all these comments—good, bad, ugly, and uglier—is that lots of people are really interacting with language in the etymological sense, expecting a mutual and reciprocal discourse from the dictionary definition.

But ask them to comment on the thing that word represents, and they fidget. Ask them to do that with a word whose use and meaning describe systems, beliefs, and attitudes that have shaped Western culture, and they will do their damnedest to leave the room as quickly and quietly as possible.

Married want real sex Merriam

The problem is not so much that lexicographers are objectively disordered when it comes to words though they undeniably are. We had hundreds of citations sitting in the files for this use, and more and more were coming in daily as states were debating the legality of gay marriage. Given the nature of the thing being described, we were very careful with how we defined that use of the word. Inwhile we were writing the Collegiate, the legality of same-sex marriage the thing was hotly debated; no state in the union had passed a law that allowed same-sex marriage, though several had challenged constitutional bans on same-sex marriage and one Vermont had passed a law allowing same-sex civil unions.

Heterosexual marriage, however, was legal nationwide. Modifiers mark a philosophical—and, in this case, lexical—divide. It was boring, lexical. We gave it due thought, entered it, and moved on. We moved ahead into the second half of the alphabet. The world, meanwhile, was spinning circles in court.

Married want real sex Merriam

Though words have a life of their own, they are tethered to real-world events. Throughout the late s, states began passing amendments to their own constitutions limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman. Inthe Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage s to same-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Hawaii Constitution, which became the trigger for H. That left 43 states on the table. The War on Marriage was in full swing. Not that we saw much of it in the dictionary offices.

I kept expecting it, but. A handful of questions about the new subsense began to trickle in to the Merriam-Webster editorial e-mail, but it was a literal handful, and they were mostly questions about when we updated the entry. The culture war seemed to have passed us by. On the morning of March 18,I padded into my home office with a large cup of coffee and booted up my work e-mail. I blew on my coffee while the e-mail loaded, then blew again; the e-mail was taking a very long time to load.

When the program crashed, I groaned and took a huge, scalding gulp of coffee. An e-mail program crash could mean only one of two things: 1 the servers and building were on fire or flooded, or 2 there was a write-in campaign afoot. I rebooted my computer and fervently prayed for 1 to be the case. Married want real sex Merriam computer dinged to life, and the e-mail began downloading again, which meant the building was not on fire; I covered my face and mooed in despair. The resident mockingbird heard me and answered with a litany of birdsong.

Write-in campaigns are the inevitable product of a strong conviction that someone or something is wrong, a woefully misguided sense of grassroots justice, and unfettered Internet access. Those people then post the write-in request to their blogs or social media profiles, and then of their closest friends write in about the word they want removed or revised. I get a ton of e-mail to answer. The first thing an editor must do in the face of a write-in campaign is figure out where the e-mail is coming from. I carefully scooted my keyboard and coffee cup to one side and then placed my head on my desk and groaned.

Leave the dictionary be. Reluctantly, I clicked back to the article. It went on to note that a dictionary from made no mention of same-sex marriage and, in fact, offered biblical support for marriage. At this, I began cackling, desperately. And of course it offered example sentences from the Bible. If you were literate in the United States during that time period, you were likely familiar with the Bible, because it was one of the few books that even the poorest families had on their shelves, and so was used didactically in educational settings.

Upon reading this, my stomach slid into my shoes and tried to hide under the desk. I bet I knew that editor:. Stamper justified the redefinition, too. I took a deep breath, and began searching through my e-mail replies while half of my brain ran circles around my head, screaming in terror. I found the very lengthy response I had sent months earlier to a reader and compared it with what had been quoted in the article. Yes, that was exactly what I had written. They had quoted a big middle chunk of my reply without altering it. I exhaled, and only then did I realize I had been holding my breath.

I looked at the very first e-mail that came in after the article ran. Time to go googling for controversy. One of the first hits I turned up was from a web forum that quoted my very first correspondent, Hal Turner. He had a blog, where he had posted his response to us and encouraged all his listeners and readers to share their upset with us.

Something scratched deep in my brain; I knew that name, where had I heard that name? The rationalizing nerd part of my brain spoke up. I went back to the original browser window and clicked a link to the forum that had Married want real sex Merriam his blog post. After a few deep breaths, and bolstered by the decision that, come hell or high water, I was absolutely going to have two beers tonight, I closed out the hate forum and went back to the WND article to scan for comments. I cackled for a long enough time that my husband set aside his work, came downstairs, and poked his head into my office.

Assuming nothing else comes in. Only the universe could have such impeccable comedic timing. I redoubled my laughter. Enough people felt passionately about this that the defining batch I had been working on prior to March 18,ended up being three weeks late. But people who start up and perpetuate write-in campaigns to the dictionary are usually grossly mistaken about what a change to the dictionary will actually accomplish. They believe that if we make a change to the dictionary, then we have made a change to the language, and if we make a change to the language, then we also make a change to the culture around that language.

We see this most poignantly in requests to remove slurs of various kinds from our dictionaries. Jerkery, like stupidity and death, is an ontological constant in our universe. The prevailing attitude toward words in the 19th century, you will remember, was that right thinking led to right usage, and right usage was a hallmark of right thinking.

American lexicographers had, to a certain extent, bought into this notion. Webster hired Worcester to help him complete an abridgment of theknowing that he had to find a way to make money off his magnum opus. And thus begins the Dictionary Wars of the 19th century. Webster or someone representing his interests started the volley with an anonymous letter published in the Worcester, Massachusetts, Palladium, in Novemberaccusing Worcester of plagiarism and implying that those who bought his dictionaries were not only getting an unoriginal work but also supporting a common thief and materially injuring an American patriot:.

We regret this, because the public, inadvertently, do an act of great injustice to a man who has rendered the country an invaluable service, and ought to recieve [ sic ] the full benefit of his labors. The whole point of doing so was to keep up with Worcester.

Market share was at stake, and so they resorted to the marketing tactics of the 19th century: hyperbole and smear. Married want real sex Merriam typography tricks, no bluster: just a lengthy explication on the goals and methods of the lexicographer, followed by a few encomiums and testimonials that appealed to the taste and judgment of the discerning reader. But these were few and far between. The Merriams, on the other hand, continued their lexicographical putsch.

Meanwhile, the race was afoot: Worcester was working on a new dictionary, and one of the higher-level editorial staff at the G. Merriam Company heard it was going to have illustrations in it.

Married want real sex Merriam

Get the handsomest. Get the cheapest. Get Webster. It is a great light, and he that will not avail himself of it must walk in darkness.

Married want real sex Merriam

Later dictionary marketing campaigns did nothing to discourage people from thinking this way. It was the marketing and sale of the Third that made the connection between the dictionary, usage, and morality crystal clear.

Married want real sex Merriam

Its large s embody—and often preach by suggestion—a dogma that far transcends the limits of lexicography. I have called it a political dogma because it makes assumptions about the people and because it implies a particular view of social intercourse. It was over a whole philosophy of life. Why should he like your dictionary? Actual human lexicographers, on the other hand, would rather hide under their desks than be reckoned culture makers. Porter ignore the Constitution of the United States?

Porter, it must be said, was merely writing a dictionary.

Married want real sex Merriam

email: [email protected] - phone:(213) 985-6895 x 4703

Talk:Marriage/Archive 3