 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010Does "adulterer" or "adulteress" apply to an unmarried person?
With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question of whether the unmarried woman could be called an adulteress. Or would she be a fornicator? I guess fornicatrix is kind of archaic these days. Some sources appear to suggest any party to adultery is an adulterer but they are vague. Other sources seem to suggest a married person would be an adulterer but neither source is clear. Related: would the unmarried person be comitting adultery or just fornication? Any offers to clarify this? > With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being > unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Any offers to clarify this? I would say that when a married person has an affair with an unmarried person, only the married person in committing adultery. Both parties are committing fornication, although we don't seem to call it that any more. I always thought that an essential part of being an adulterer (or an adulteress) is the betrayal of one's own spouse, not of someone else's. I'm sure there will be people who have always thought the term referred to any out-of-wedlock sex!  SignatureCheryl > [ ... ] > I always thought that an essential part of being an adulterer (or an > adulteress) is the betrayal of one's own spouse, not of someone else's. Well, me too, but lots of people in the US seemed to think (or pretended to think) that Mr Clinton's Ugandan activities were a matter of more general concern than just to Mrs Clinton. Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden filted: >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >pretended to think) that Mr Clinton's Ugandan activities were a matter >of more general concern than just to Mrs Clinton. That would depend on what their definitions of "were" were....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to think) that Mr Clinton's Ugandan activities were a matter of more > general concern than just to Mrs Clinton. Surely that's a matter of national tradition. In Britain, politicians caught up in sex scandals seem to survive, but those caught for financial corruption are ousted. In the USA it's the other way around. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > caught up in sex scandals seem to survive, but those caught for > financial corruption are ousted. In the USA it's the other way around. While in Italy some form of scandal is almost mandatory :-) James >>>> [ ... ] >>>> I always thought that an essential part of being an adulterer (or an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > While in Italy some form of scandal is almost mandatory :-) Yes, and Italian politicians are sufficiently creative to be able to combine sex and financial corruption into the same scandal. At least one Italian politician, anyway. As I recall one of Berlusconi's recent caught-with-his-pants-down incident, the public wasn't indignant about his being found with a prostitute, but there was certainly some indignation over the claim that he didn't pay her. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > caught up in sex scandals seem to survive, but those caught for > financial corruption are ousted. In the USA it's the other way around. And in Australia? Actually, a lot of our politicians caught in financial corruption are ousted, and some of those caught in sexual scandals stay on. Mr. Clinton was mentioned above, and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds -- Jerry Friedman >>>> [ ... ] >>>> I always thought that an essential part of being an adulterer (or an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And in Australia? Hmm ... I've been trying to think of some notable Australian political sex scandals, and it seems that there's been a mixed bag of outcomes. Going back a fair while, I recall that one very promising Cabinet minister had his career completely destroyed over a bit of hanky-panky with one of his aides. There were other factors there, though. She was Eurasian - which attracted the attention of the racists - and stunningly beautiful - which guaranteed plenty of coverage in the tabloids. More recently, a senior member of a small political party switched to a larger party, and it was obvious from the information that leaked that this was at least partly because her lover, who was I think Foreign Minister at the time, was helping to advance her career. Neither of them suffered in any insignificant way. Unfairly, the woman's former party did suffer; people started wondering who else was about to switch allegiance. A while back there was a lot of publicity when a Prime Minister left his wife of many years for another woman. The main outcome was a spate of jokes about blanched hazelnuts. (His wife was named Hazel, the new woman was Blanche.) In that case, though, he was either recently retired or about to retire - I forget which. Our present Prime Minister got a bit of criticism when it was discovered that he had been in a strip club, but he's survived that. His excuse was that he was drunk at the time and didn't realise that it was a strip club. Closer to my home, a parliamentarian was outed for supplying drugs in exchange for sex with under-age boys. He definitely lost his job, and suffered criminal prosecution as well. I'm sorry to report that his office manager also lost her job, and is still unemployed. Very obviously the state government has blacklisted her for disloyalty; she supplied information to the police, and they're not about to forgive her for that. I can't think of any good money-related scandals. It is widely believed that some of our state politicians are on the take, but the proof is merely circumstantial. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >>>> [ ... ] > >>>> I always thought that an essential part of being an adulterer (or an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Eurasian - which attracted the attention of the racists - and stunningly > beautiful - which guaranteed plenty of coverage in the tabloids. ... Here the fact that she was one of his aides would have been a big part of the problem. > Our present Prime Minister got a bit of criticism when it was discovered > that he had been in a strip club, but he's survived that. His excuse was > that he was drunk at the time and didn't realise that it was a strip club. That might work in New Mexico, too. > Closer to my home, a parliamentarian was outed for supplying drugs in > exchange for sex with under-age boys. He definitely lost his job, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > supplied information to the police, and they're not about to forgive her > for that. ... Now that's not good. -- Jerry Friedman > Our present Prime Minister got a bit of criticism when it was discovered > that he had been in a strip club, but he's survived that. His excuse was > that he was drunk at the time and didn't realise that it was a strip club. Did he think he was going to a Tea Bar and failed to notice that the letters S, T, R, I, P, S, E, C, A, E and T in the outside neon had died? Well, this could happen to any of us, I reckon. (This was originally a Benny Hill skit. As they say, the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.) >>> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >caught up in sex scandals seem to survive, but those caught for >financial corruption are ousted. In the USA it's the other way around. I'm not sure that's strictly true for the UK. The British seem to be entranced by sexual peccadilloes. The papers have been full of the latest one, involving a soccer player. But those MPs who have been fiddling their expenses and who have adopted to leave Parliament are mostly going to collect sixty grand when they pass "stop". SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>> [ ... ] >>>> I always thought that an essential part of being an adulterer (or an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fiddling their expenses and who have adopted to leave Parliament are > mostly going to collect sixty grand when they pass "stop". The last of ours just went to prison. They don't tend to stay there long. One of them got out in mere months, to the cheers of his supporters in his consituency, under some kind of special provision intended for exceptional circumstances. I'm not sure what the special circumstances were in that case, aside from the prominent local political person thing. Oh, and some or all of them had to pay back the money, or at least some of it. One person (a civil servant, not a politician) lost most of it gambling, according to his lawyer, and so can't pay it back. Then there was the guy who reduced his assets by selling his house to a relative for $1. I think the crown is looking into the legality of that sale. SignatureCheryl >>>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > fiddling their expenses and who have adopted to leave Parliament are > mostly going to collect sixty grand when they pass "stop". Y'know, I've been rather annoyed at the British public's latest ridiculous fit of morality (no, I don't mean the footballer: that's just the press). Very few MPs actually broke the rules, but even a lot of those who didn't have been penalised. I don't know that too many crooks are collecting a sixty-thousand-quid resettlement allowance. The system was clearly hopeless, and the Parliamentary Fees Office do seem to have been swayed by deference (hard to blame them for that) when asked to check the allowability of claims; but UK MPs are absurdly underpaid, and a loose system of expense accounting is regarded as fair game across much of the private sector that politicians worship so humbly. The non-grabbing MPs and the party leaders could have blown the whistle, and they didn't. The real issues here, as far as I'm concerned, are twin ones. MPs should have the ultimate authority to make the rules for their own remuneration, without recourse to anybody unelected; but they should do so transparently, and in a way which the electorate can see is reasonable. By blowing the second, they've thrown away the first, and that's bad for the country. Parliament has already lost far too much power: it should be recovering it, not surrendering more. SignatureMike. >>>>> [ ... ] >>>>> I always thought that an essential part of being an adulterer (or [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > seem to have been swayed by deference (hard to blame them for that) when > asked to check the allowability of claims; I really don't buy this deference stuff and I'm puzzled as to why the Fees Office has not come in for any criticism and is being presented as the victim of bullying MPs. but UK MPs are absurdly > underpaid, Do you think so? Compared to whom? Bankers, no doubt. and a loose system of expense accounting is regarded as fair > game across much of the private sector that politicians worship so > humbly. The non-grabbing MPs and the party leaders could have blown the > whistle, and they didn't. > The real issues here, as far as I'm concerned, are twin ones. MPs should > have the ultimate authority to make the rules for their own [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that's bad for the country. Parliament has already lost far too much > power: it should be recovering it, not surrendering more. I think the constituency should have some say in the remuneration of an MP. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) [...] >> The system was clearly hopeless, and the Parliamentary Fees Office do >> seem to have been swayed by deference (hard to blame them for that) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Do you think so? Compared to whom? Bankers, no doubt. Never mind bankers: these people are actually meant to be doing something important. They've got to be financially independent. > and a loose system of expense accounting is regarded as fair >> game across much of the private sector that politicians worship so [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I think the constituency should have some say in the remuneration of > an MP. I'm not sure how that could be kept fair: some constituencies would award the candidature to the lowest bidder. That is to say, the richest applicant. SignatureMike. >LFS wrote: >[...] [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >award the candidature to the lowest bidder. That is to say, the richest >applicant. That is, the financially independent, as desired. It's rather a good plan. The cash flow could even be reversed, and the party slot auctioned, with the price going to the Exchequer. The constituency would take a 10% buyer's premium. Motto: No Representation Without Taxation. Parliament would no longer be MPs on freebies, but a customer base. We could give them personalised loyalty cards, and air miles according to their votes on bills. SignaturePaul > Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote> ... > >> I think the constituency should have some say in the remuneration of > >> an MP. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Without Taxation. Parliament would no longer be MPs on freebies, but a > customer base. We could give them personalised Too expensive--you don't want to coddle them. > loyalty cards, and air miles according to their votes on bills. Is that air miles for every vote cast? Or do the constituents have a referendum, and then the MP gets air miles in proportion to the numbers of voters he or she agreed with? Or maybe it should really work like frequent-flier miles: For every vote cast, the MP gets an additional amount of time in office. -- Jerry Friedman > That is, the financially independent, as desired. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > customer base. We could give them personalised loyalty cards, and air > miles according to their votes on bills. I believe that at one time, the Romans did something like this. For ages, being a provincial governor was a ticket to print (or rather loot) money, but later on, the perks dried up and the governors tended to end up out of pocket. If I recall correctly, there was a period when rich governors were appointed whether they liked it or not. I quite like this idea. I certainly don't want to see politicians overpaid like a few private (and increasingly public) sector bosses. About 40 years ago, the base salary (excluding perks) for a backbencher in the West Australian state government was the same as that for a teacher on maximum. Now, they have not only left teachers for dead; they are paying themselves approximately the same as federal politicians. SignatureRob Bannister >> That is, the financially independent, as desired. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > teacher on maximum. Now, they have not only left teachers for dead; they > are paying themselves approximately the same as federal politicians. And if they're anything like the Canadian lot, they have a pension plan which is without parallel even in the public service for the short period of time you have to put in to get it, and the money you get when you do qualify. I find it astonishing how ALL of these people could be earning vastly more if only they had stayed in private life instead of sacrificing in order to run for Parliament. Some, sure; there are always a few wealthy people who earn top dollar in their private lives who run. But I don't really think that they are all sacrificing so much earning potential (which is one of the reasons given for the pay scale and the pension). SignatureCheryl >>> That is, the financially independent, as desired. >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > really think that they are all sacrificing so much earning potential > (which is one of the reasons given for the pay scale and the pension). Even more astonishing is how many of them are prepared to cheat for a few thousand extra dollars. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> That is, the financially independent, as desired. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Even more astonishing is how many of them are prepared to cheat for a >few thousand extra dollars. How many Americans regularly cheat on their income tax returns, often for a much smaller benefit, with well-documented, substantial penalties if caught? Most people, I think, figure they can get away with these things. Which is probably true. As the British members of parliament often said, everyone was doing it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >How many Americans regularly cheat on their income tax returns, often >for a much smaller benefit, with well-documented, substantial >penalties if caught? >Most people, I think, figure they can get away with these things. The priest at the (Catholic) parish I belong to commented that he wished that the Sunday collections in 2010 would rise to at least half of what the parishioners claimed their contributions were on their 2009 tax returns. Or so my wife says. I wasn't there that day. Or any other day. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> That is, the financially independent, as desired. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Which is probably true. As the British members of parliament often > said, everyone was doing it. This is the excuse used by many, whereas in fact I rather doubt that the majority cheat even on their income tax. It's mainly the people with large incomes* who break the law, sometimes for trifling amounts. * I was going to say "who earn a lot", but I'm dubious about the "earning" part. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>> That is, the financially independent, as desired. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >* I was going to say "who earn a lot", but I'm dubious about the >"earning" part. The salt of the earth never break the law, only the rich? Give me a break. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>> That is, the financially independent, as desired. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > The salt of the earth never break the law, only the rich? Give me a > break. I won't argue that only the rich cheat, but I don't think that everyone who thinks they can get away with it cheats. Lots of people are pretty honest. (And I probably wouldn't have posted to this if I hadn't heard someone defending a Canadian politician caught cheating sexually on the grounds that everybody behaves badly, no one really expects anyone to behave well, or is upset when they don't, and anyways, since we live in a democracy we are supposed to elect people exactly like ourselves - that is, dishonest lying manipulative cheats - to represent us, so what's the problem? I am paraphrasing slightly.) SignatureCheryl <snip> >> The salt of the earth never break the law, only the rich? Give me a >> break. > >I won't argue that only the rich cheat, but I don't think that everyone >who thinks they can get away with it cheats. Lots of people are pretty >honest. I would express your last thought as "most people are honest". That is not to say that anyone is perfect. Perhaps we are saying much the same thing, but in different words. <snip> SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>> That is, the financially independent, as desired. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > The salt of the earth never break the law, only the rich? Give me a > break. It's a question of opportunity: if you're a wage earner, you have almost no chance of fiddling your income tax. If you're self-employed, the temptation must be enormous. If you are a politician or a bank director, I can only suppose it's a question of showing either how clever you are or showing your disdain for petty rules that only apply to the plebs. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>>>> That is, the financially independent, as desired. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >I can only suppose it's a question of showing either how clever you are >or showing your disdain for petty rules that only apply to the plebs. Why do people routinely turn in dropped or misplaced wallets and purses, sometimes full of money, ID and credit cards, to the police or to the Lost and Found Offices found in many public transportation facilities? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> How many Americans regularly cheat on their income tax returns, >>>> often [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> Which is probably true. As the British members of parliament often >>>> said, everyone was doing it. >>> This is the excuse used by many, whereas in fact I rather doubt that >>> the majority cheat even on their income tax. [...] I agree with that, Rob, though I have no back-up statistics to support my view. (Do such stats even exist? If so, are they simply estimates?) Speaking for myself and people I know very well, I'd say that widespread cheating on income tax returns is more myth than fact. We have an accountant (CPA) do our taxes, but only because there are two states involved and thus a set of rules for each. I prepare all the material for the accountant: all statements, back-up documents {which include all expense receipts) and I'm very exact, "right down to the penny." All income statements are provided by the government (US, Michigan, and Tennessee), by the rental company we use, and by former employers or their adjuncts[1] (retirement income) and by whoever else may provide income. [1] adjuncts: right word there? The only way to cheat would be through expenses, and I don't. (Trust me. Why would I bother when the rewards would be small and the penalties huge? Also, I don't want to be dishonest, and thereby set a bad example for my children and grandson. That last may be a common feeling among most people -- "most people" being those who don't cheat on taxes.) >>> This is the excuse used by many, whereas in fact I rather doubt that >>> the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's a question of opportunity: if you're a wage earner, you have > almost no chance of fiddling your income tax. And the same could be said for retirees and those who are on "layoff." > If you're self-employed, the > temptation must be enormous. Probably. (Do they get audited often by the Income Tax people?) > If you are a politician or a bank director, > I can only suppose it's a question of showing either how clever you > are > or showing your disdain for petty rules that only apply to the plebs. Politicians may well be dishonest when it comes to income taxes (and etc.), but we can probably count on some of them to be honest. Bank directors? No idea. I'd think they make enough without cheating on taxes. Probably gullible (a word I often misspell, changing "i" for "a"), Maria Conlon Assume the usual disclaimers regarding editing what I've written. Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >Y'know, I've been rather annoyed at the British public's latest >ridiculous fit of morality (no, I don't mean the footballer: that's just >the press). Very few MPs actually broke the rules, but even a lot of >those who didn't have been penalised. Most of the problem arose over second homes. Each MP had to sign a declaration "that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament". Many clearly lied - hardly proper behaviour for a self-styled "honourable member". AIUI over 50% of MPs have agreed to repay at least part of what they claimed with that declaration. >[...] >The system was clearly hopeless, Agreed, but the responsibility for that lies squarely with the house itself. Their mistake, both individually and collectively, was to underestimate the effect of the Freedom of Information Act in making it all public. Matters were made worse by their pathetic and futile attempts to hide it when the FoI campaigners started to make headway. >[...] >UK MPs are absurdly >underpaid, Possibly, but again that's their responsibility. Unfortunately many attempts to reform the system have been judged unworkable due to the unfavourable media attention it would attract. That's part of a wider issue, but by steadily surrendering the moral high ground, politicians have squandered any opportunity they once had to inspire the media with any sense of responsibility. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > The system was clearly hopeless, and the Parliamentary Fees Office do > seem to have been swayed by deference (hard to blame them for that) when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > humbly. The non-grabbing MPs and the party leaders could have blown the > whistle, and they didn't. Interesting thought from an MP on the radio this morning. I didn't catch his party, but he explained that he could live comfortably in Sunderland on £60k and that he is one of the most higly paid people in the local party association. A few doctors and a headteacher being the only members earning more. But he recognised that it's very different for an MP in Surrey who would most likely find himself to be earning the least of all the members of the local party. SignatureDavid >Interesting thought from an MP on the radio this morning. I didn't >catch his party, but he explained that he could live comfortably in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >would most likely find himself to be earning the least of all the >members of the local party. It was a rather splendid interview, but that's no doubt because he's standing down at the next election. It was Chris Mullin, Labour MP for Sunderland. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > The British seem to be >entranced by sexual peccadilloes. The papers have been full of the >latest one, involving a soccer player. Indeed, but this latest one goes beyond the usual "playing away" with stray women, orgies, etc. It is very personal. As reported by the Daily Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/31/england-captain-john-terry-g ot-wayne-bridge-s-girlfriend-pregnant-115875-22007179/ or http://tinyurl.com/y9ogokj French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn weeks into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best friend and neighbour. Terry – who already has two children with long-suffering wife Toni – was left in dread of the news leaking out and wrecking his lucrative sponsorship deals. The defender arranged for the pregnancy to be terminated at an exclusive clinic where Vanessa was taken in through a side entrance. A source said: "Terry was gripped by blind panic. Having a love child with the girlfriend of his best pal, who's also a friend of his wife's, would have spelled total disaster – even by his appalling standards of behaviour. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> The British seem to be >> entranced by sexual peccadilloes. The papers have been full of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best friend and > neighbour. Taking no interest whatsoever in football, celebrities or the sexual transgressions of people I've never heard of, I have only barely noticed this story (couldn't avoid it entirely on the R4 sports news). However, I notice that it's impossible to tell whether she's a French actress or she models French underwear. Or both. SignatureDavid >Taking no interest whatsoever in football, celebrities or the sexual >transgressions of people I've never heard of, I have only barely noticed >this story (couldn't avoid it entirely on the R4 sports news). However, >I notice that it's impossible to tell whether she's a French actress or >she models French underwear. Or both. She is French and was an underwear model in England. The Daily Mail has a fairly long biographical piece about her: http://tinyurl.com/yk2r8xf For a while, she became the face of Richard Branson's Virgin lingerie. She also modelled, for £250 a day, on ITV's This Morning, and appeared on posters for an Ali G film. "Going for gold: Vanessa Perroncel in a film poster with Ali G in 2002": http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/06/article-1249132-082D8867000005DC-100_4 68x693.jpg She appears to have no need to work for a living. She is financially supported by one boyfriend after another; the wealthier the better; footballers a speciality. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >> The British seem to be > >> entranced by sexual peccadilloes. The papers have been full of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > this story (couldn't avoid it entirely on the R4 sports news). However, > I notice that it's impossible to tell whether she's a French actress Model? > or > she models French underwear. Or both. Syntactically, I agree, but it's a distinction without a difference. -- Jerry Friedman >>> The British seem to be >>> entranced by sexual peccadilloes. The papers have been full of the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I notice that it's impossible to tell whether she's a French actress or >she models French underwear. Or both. I haven't been following it closely, or at all. I watch the BBC and Sky TV News channels from time to time. The story is unavoidable. The most rational comments have come from some sports journalists (did I really write that?). There is a potential problem with "team cohesion". Both Terry and Bridge are members of the England soccer team. Terry was Captain of the team. Some other members of the team are likely to be sympathetic to and to support Bridge. It might have been difficult for them to have accepted Terry's continued captaincy. I understand that the captain of a soccer team does very little in the way of captaining on the pitch during a match. The title is largely symbolic. It is a badge of honour. That is the background to Fabio Capello's stripping Terry of the captaincy. Terry remains a crucial member of the England team. If Terry had been liaising with the wife or girlfriend of another player who was not a member of the England team there would have been no threat to his continued captaincy. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> The British seem to be >>> entranced by sexual peccadilloes. The papers have been full of the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I notice that it's impossible to tell whether she's a French actress or > she models French underwear. Or both. The above sentence implies that she models French underwear. However, I'm unhappy about "fell pregnant... with". I am familiar with the rather out-dated "fell pregnant to", but "with"? It's as though she and John Terry both succumbed to the same disease. SignatureRob Bannister >>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn weeks >>> into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best friend and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > out-dated "fell pregnant to", but "with"? It's as though she and John > Terry both succumbed to the same disease. "with" doesn't belong to "fell pregnant". It belongs to "fling". SignatureDavid >>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn weeks >>>> into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best friend and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >"with" doesn't belong to "fell pregnant". It belongs to "fling". This is my first encounter with "fell pregnant". Is it, or was it, BrE? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 09 Feb 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote >>>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last >>>>> autumn weeks into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > This is my first encounter with "fell pregnant". Is it, or was > it, BrE? Is, I'd say -- perhaps a tad on the formal/polite side of things, but unremarkable. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn >>>>> weeks into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > This is my first encounter with "fell pregnant". Is it, or was it, > BrE? The implication is one of unfortunate lapse. Fell from grace. Fell sick of an old passion. Fell among babies. What has it got in its lapses? >>>>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn >>>>>> weeks into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >sick of an old passion. Fell among babies. What has it got in its >lapses? The Wiktionary definition and usage note are a trifle contradictory: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fall_pregnant Verb 1. (intransitive, formal or literary) To become pregnant. "We were delighted when I fell pregnant with my first son." Usage notes * Likely a biblical reference in origin; seen as turning pregnancy into an activity solely involving the woman and freeing the man from responsibility. That is at odds with the example given above "We were delighted...". See also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/07/26/do2602.xml for an analysis of the word's etymology. In my observation of the use of the phrase today, "fall pregnant" is as neutral as "become pregnant". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn >>>>>>> weeks into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > In my observation of the use of the phrase today, "fall pregnant" > is as neutral as "become pregnant". It's a British idiom and a British headline, so you win. To my North American eye, though, (and apparently to Rob's Australian one) the word "fell" stands out. > It's a British idiom and a British headline, so you win. To my North > American eye, though, (and apparently to Rob's Australian one) the > word "fell" stands out. No, no. I said I was familiar with "fell pregnant to". There's a pattern: fall sick, fall in love, fall pregnant. SignatureRob Bannister >> It's a British idiom and a British headline, so you win. To my North >> American eye, though, (and apparently to Rob's Australian one) the >> word "fell" stands out. > > No, no. I said I was familiar with "fell pregnant to". > There's a pattern: fall sick, fall in love, fall pregnant. Of the three, I only know 'fall in love' outside books written in other parts of the English-speaking world. SignatureCheryl >> It's a British idiom and a British headline, so you win. To my >> North American eye, though, (and apparently to Rob's Australian >> one) the word "fell" stands out. > > No, no. I said I was familiar with "fell pregnant to". > There's a pattern: fall sick, fall in love, fall pregnant. Sorry. I was misled by the mention you made of disease*. "Fell ill" is what first came to mind when I saw "fell pregnant". *('I'm unhappy about "fell pregnant... with". I am familiar with the rather out-dated "fell pregnant to", but "with"? It's as though she and John Terry both succumbed to the same disease.') >>>>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn >>>>>> weeks into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >sick of an old passion. Fell among babies. What has it got in its >lapses? This conflicts, it seems to me, with Harvey's statement that it is a formal, polite thing to say. To avoid getting my face slapped some time in the future, I'd like to see this straightened out. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn >>>>>>> weeks into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > formal, polite thing to say. To avoid getting my face slapped some > time in the future, I'd like to see this straightened out. You will be safe using it on the side of the Atlantic Conveyor Belt that you presently occupy, by Harvey and Peter. > This is my first encounter with "fell pregnant". Is it, or was it, > BrE? It's all part of the mindset that regards pregnancy as a disease instead of the failure of the immune system to reject a foreign body. SignatureRob Bannister >> This is my first encounter with "fell pregnant". Is it, or was it, >> BrE? > > It's all part of the mindset that regards pregnancy as a disease > instead of the failure of the immune system to reject a foreign > body. That's as good a definition of "disease" as I've heard in a while. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive. | Lori Karkosky kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >>> This is my first encounter with "fell pregnant". Is it, or was it, >>> BrE? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >That's as good a definition of "disease" as I've heard in a while. Heard on the web, many years ago: Q: What is the most common sexually-transmitted disease? A: Children. ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Q: What is the most common sexually-transmitted disease? > A: Children. I thought it was "Life". SignatureDavid >> This is my first encounter with "fell pregnant". Is it, or was it, >> BrE? > >It's all part of the mindset that regards pregnancy as a disease instead >of the failure of the immune system to reject a foreign body. Applause! Or ROTFL, as we used to say. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn weeks >>>> into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best friend and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > "with" doesn't belong to "fell pregnant". It belongs to "fling". Ah. I read it as "fell pregnant, weeks into her fling, with...". It can't be good for a person to fall into such a condition while being flung about. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn weeks >>>>> into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best friend and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > can't be good for a person to fall into such a condition while being > flung about. If it were that, she would have given birth to a Premiership footballer. The object of "fell pregnant with" is a child. - It was at this time that the Queen fell pregnant with the next King. SignatureDavid >>>>>> French underwear model Vanessa, 28, fell pregnant last autumn weeks >>>>>> into her fling with [John] Terry, [Wayne] Bridge's best friend and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - It was at this time that the Queen fell pregnant with the next King. Spot on. I had forgotten that construction. Fortunately, one doesn't often hear it these days. SignatureRob Bannister On Feb 5, 10:31 pm, James Harris <james.harri...@googlemail.com> wrote: > With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being > unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Any offers to clarify this? Canon law ought to be able to tell you what are the tests for adultery. I reckon it means something different to the South London bus passenger. Me, as an unmarried lad, I reckoned I had no exposure. Adultery was what you did only if you had already promised not to. In other words, there's probably a formal definition, and also an interpretation by the people, and I wouldn't bet on them matching. -- franzi > With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being > unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Related: would the unmarried person be comitting adultery or just > fornication? Weirdly, Fowler in MEU reports a double standard: _Fornication_, as distinguished from _adultery_, implies that the woman is not a wife; it is sometimes but not always understood to imply further that neither party is married.... It seems from this, at any rate, that if adultery is committed at all, both parties are committing it. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Patriotism is the conviction that a particular country is :|| ||: the best in the world because you were born in it. :|| >> With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being >> unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It seems from this, at any rate, that if adultery is committed at all, > both parties are committing it. Sounds more fun than doing it by yourself. SignatureRob Bannister >> With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being >> unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >It seems from this, at any rate, that if adultery is committed at all, >both parties are committing it. OED: adultery 1. Violation of the marriage bed; the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex, whether unmarried, or married to another (the former case being technically designated *single*, the latter *double adultery*). b. Extended in Scripture, to unchastity generally; and by various theologians opprobriously used of any marriages of which they disapproved, as of a widower, a nun, a Christian with a Jewess, etc. (*interpretative adultery*). Also fig. in Script. to giving the affections to idols, idol-worship; and in Eccl. writers to the enjoyment by any one of a benefice during the life-time of the legal incumbent, or to the translation of a bishop from one see to another (*spiritual adultery*). See Chambers Cycl. Supp. 1753, s.v. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 6 Feb, 00:21, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >> With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being > >> unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > or married to another (the former case being technically designated > *single*, the latter *double adultery*). Well, that seems to cover it. Thanks Peter. I can't help feeling that if someone referred to double adultery people are more likely to think it meant adultery twice! But it does settle the question: both are called adultery. James On Feb 5, 7:21�pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >> With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being > >> unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > � � �legal incumbent, or to the translation of a bishop from one see to > � � �another (*spiritual adultery*). See Chambers Cycl. Supp. 1753, s.v. Suppose a married man sins with Dolly (you know which "Dolly") Is Dolly an adulteress? or an adulterine? Baa-ah! Arcadian Rises filted: >Suppose a married man sins with Dolly (you know which "Dolly") > >Is Dolly an adulteress? or an adulterine? >Baa-ah! Dolly was adulterated.... (And she departed this world some seven years ago, so there are other words for people who would mess with her now)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being >unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Related: would the unmarried person be comitting adultery or just >fornication? Adultery. Fornication is where both parties are unmarried. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being > unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Any offers to clarify this? Yes. Read your dictionary. Any party to sexual relations that interfere with one of the parties marriage vows is an adulterer. >> With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being >> unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yes. Read your dictionary. Any party to sexual relations that interfere with > one of the parties marriage vows is an adulterer. The woman in this particular case had an interesting sentence in her statement about her "friendship" with the alleged adulterer: "I do not believe that speaking to newspapers and/or the media is in my interest." Since when are newspapers not media? SignatureJames >>> With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being >>> unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Since when are newspapers not media? Or even "medias". Selected OED quotes: 1927 Amer. Speech 3 26 One of the best advertising medias in the middle west. 1973 ‘R. MACDONALD’ Sleeping Beauty i. 9 ‘You from a media?’ ‘No, I'm just a citizen.’ 1976 F. ZWEIG New Acquisitive Society I. v. 53 There is insistence on spontaneity and simplicity of life, decrying..the calculating tactics of political parties and medias. 1994 M. EBON KGB: Death & Rebirth III. xiii. 142 The term ‘Western special services’ had long been used by Soviet medias as a synonym for foreign intelligence agencies. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >> With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being > >> unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Since when are newspapers not media? Perhaps she was referring literally to "newspapers" (i.e. a copy of TNYT) and generally to the media. > > With the current UK news about a married footballer allegedly being > > unfaithful to his with with an unmarried woman it raised the question [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yes. Read your dictionary. Any party to sexual relations that interfere with > one of the parties marriage vows is an adulterer. I use it the way you use it, but my dictionary says "adulterer" is "a person who commits adultery," and adultery is "1 Voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person other than with his or her spouse. b Occas. extended in biblical and theological use: any irregular sexual intercourse or forbidden marriage; idolatry." -- Jerry Friedman > > "James Harris" <james.harri...@googlemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Occas. extended in biblical and theological use: any irregular sexual > intercourse or forbidden marriage; idolatry." That comports with my understanding. If Mr. and Mrs. Smith are married, and Mr. Smith has sex with Miss Jones, I'd say that Mr. Smith is an adulterer/committed adultery. I wouldn't say that Miss Jones is an adulteress/committed adultery. Webster's is unclear on that distinction: "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband"; between doesn't necessarily imply by the former, though the phrasing seems to skew that way to me (I could be misled by preconceptions). The 1913 version does distinguish clearly: "1. The unfaithfulness of a married person to the marriage bed; sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or voluntary sexual intercourse by a married woman with another than her husband." (It's somewhat interesting that "voluntary" was used in the latter case only) On Feb 6, 3:03�pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "James Harris" <james.harri...@googlemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > (It's somewhat interesting that "voluntary" was used in the latter > case only)- Hide quoted text - Because, supposedly, men cannot be raped by women. If memory serves me right, adultery is an affair outside of marriage, and the married one/s who engage in this are called the adulterers. Fornication = premarital sex I suspect a married person having an affair with an unmarried person would be performing adultery, while the unmarried person is performing fornication. > If memory serves me right, You can't remember what it was you were doing? adultery is an affair outside of marriage, > and the married one/s who engage in this are called the adulterers. > > Fornication = premarital sex Premarital or extramarital? I imagine it can occur post-marriage too. > I suspect a married person having an affair with an unmarried person > would be performing adultery, while the unmarried person is performing > fornication. My take is that anyone who is breaking the sacrament (or whatever it's called) of marriage is committing adultery, so the unmarried person is equally guilty. SignatureRob Bannister |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.