To find the use of the word ‘fiancé’ irritating?

But that’s a totally subjective opinion. “Fiancé” hasn’t been in common use in English that long.

Um, no. I'm absolutely right.

YW.

But again, you should stick to more simplistic terms. You're more comfortable with them, and you won't be too much danger of using them incorrectly.

You tried to claim that it's a teenage affectation to use the correct term husband. Which, of course, it's not, and your stance is a very odd one.

The person you are replying to was pointing out that you must move in interesting circles if you actually believe this to be true.

HTH.

I irritates me when people refer to my husband and my partner. As to me it’s completely different.
no one in real like would ever know that it irritates me (it’s not like I correct them either).
I mostly refer to my husband by his name.

Oh give over. You’re just wrong.

As a baby second-wave feminist who was nevertheless going to get married, in church at that (when we got engaged my best friend sent me a congratulations card that said "Traitor!") I experimented with using the word partner, both before and after the wedding.

It felt a little pretentious/transgressionary but also kind of a duty? Hard to explain now but the whole concept of marriage was under scrutiny, especially as same-sex marriages weren't even on the horizon.

We got married in 1992, so "partner" to signify a romantic relationship has been around for over 35 years. I certainly wasn't a pioneer though I think I count as an early-adopter😄

Thinking about it, a couple of my friends lived with their mum and "step-dad" who weren't married. In 1985 I recall her referring to "my other half" (it was a situation where calling him John would not have told the other person anything) and my sister and I had a bit of a discussion afterwards as to whether there were any other socially-appropriate terms. I don't think we came up with partner so it obviously filtered down to English LMC at some point in the late 80s.

Nowadays we refer to our sons' cohabiting-girlfriends as fiancee and partner (neither of which, in speech, tells the listener whether the son in question is straight - so my inner 2nd-wave is appeased somewhat)

It’s not necessary to be pretentious to be skilful with language. Concrete Anglo-Saxon words generally make for more effective communication than more abstract Latin words. Have a read of Gowers or Strunk & White. They might open your eyes.

Run that by me again?

I didn't say it was common, just that it wouldn't jump out at me as unusual, rather like 'verboten'. It's infrequently used, but well understood.

And no, I'm not missing the point.

If the mother had been using the term 'tableaux vivant' correctly to describe what she wanted to do, then the term 'musical statues' would've been wrong. And I'm not sure there's a term in English to describe 'tableaux vivant'? So while she was using the term incorrectly, there does seem to be a use for it.

They've dug themselves a linguistic hole, and are determined to keep on digging, I'm afraid.

Yes, I agree. And I’ve already said that.

It’s all about detail and context. Somebody mentioned ‘pro bono’ as a loan phrase (from Latin). If a lawyer used it in a legal context, fine. But “I told Sarah I’d give her the dress for free” would sound ludicrous as “I told Sarah I’d give her the dress pro bono”.

Those who feel inferior about their command of language tend to automatically assume that other people desire to appear superior when using unfamiliar words and phrases. But in fact those who use more nuanced, poetic or novel terminology often simply do so in a perfectly natural fashion.

Accusing someone of acting superior for simply possessing and using a wider vocabulary than basic newspeak is an attempt to reframe provincial limitations as a virtue and other people's linguistic skill as an offence.

And those same people would be deeply offended if the same unfair and untrue accusation were to be made of them over - say - their orienteering and route planning skills, or their mechanical abilities.

Some people are simply more naturally proficient in language, and allowing the green eyed monster to take hold because others don't hobble themselves linguistically so as not to engender jealousy is very unbecoming.

It’s very teenage to be engaged to be married and to use the correct term for the person you will be marrying? Interesting circles you move in.

You can gloat quietly, for sure, but it’s always negative and derogatory of the object of the gloat. Schadenfreude isn’t.

Agree. It's very teenage.

I think you’re being painfully literal and missing the point. The mother using it was trying to show off her ‘admirable’ vocabulary. Whether she used it strictly correctly or not isn’t the point.

Why on earth is ‘wunderkind’ common in NZ?

It’s not usual, certainly. And it could mean pretentiousness/arrogance. But there are lots of words which are used perfectly normally I. English, such as fiancé, which are perfectly usual.

😆

No, it doesn’t.

I never said it, i said partner and then husband once married. I felt like saying fiancé was showing off i was engaged!

You can experience schadenfreude without expressing it and without being arrogant. It’s an important distinction. So while gloating probably does include a feeling of schadenfreude, schadenfreude doesn’t always include gloating. Useful differentiation.

People can gloat quietly and unboastfully. People can express Schadenfreude openly and unpleasantly.

It’s all about the context.

“I had a sense of Schadenfreude when my boss got fired” is no different to “I gloated when my boss got fired”.

I’d say that ‘gloat’ is the more adaptable and useful word.

Schadenfreude isn’t an equivalent of gloat at all. Gloating implies being deeply pleased that something unpleasant has happened to someone and also maybe expressing that. Schadenfreude can just be happiness it wasn’t you. Doesn’t necessarily mean you are glad it’s someone else. For example if you are watching blooper reels you could experience schadenfreude because you enjoy a laugh at the expense of the famous actors. That’s not the same as gloating.

That was my intention.

For me in NZ, 'wunderkind' wouldn't take me by surprise, but 'tableaux vivants' would intrigue me as I didn't recognise the term, so I'd want to know more.

Having Googled it, I recalled I've seen it on Modern Family, of all things, and it's got nothing to do with musical statues. So the person was using it incorrectly.