Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
I am about to begin working with a tutor to improve my Spanish. I anticipate that the tutor will prompt me to speak about my everyday life. Inevitably, my (same-sex) partner will come up. What is the best word for me to use to refer to him? My Spanish dictionary and Google Translate suggest cónyuge. Does that sound right? If it matters, I will be learning Latin American Spanish. My tutor will mostly likely be Guatemalan. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Diccionario de la lengua española, the prescriptive authority on the language, cónyuge used to mean only "husband or wife," but has now taken on the meaning (if you click on the Artículo enmendado button ["amended/revised entry"] on that linked website) to include any "person united to another in marriage." If you're both married, that word will work fine, but if you're not married, pareja, which simply means "partner" and is feminine even when referring to a man (e.g. Mi pareja es muy simpática. Se llama Javier.), is a better choice. In fact, pareja sounds better than cónyuge to my (non-native but with years of Spanish experience) ears even if you are married. You might also like to refer to him by the one of my favorite idioms: mi media naranja, "my better half," though it literally means "my half orange." Hope this serves useful until some native speakers come to offer better usage notes.--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 04:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you feel the need to impose your lifestyle on others, a good word would be amigo. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Would you say that to a straight guy asking for the Spanish word for "wife"? Refusing to use coy "euphemisms" to describe one's life partner is not "imposing one's lifestyle" (whatever that's supposed to mean) "on others". —Angr (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your shirt on. Who said anything about "husband" or "wife"? If you were cohabiting with someone you were not married to, be it same or opposite sex, would you say, "lover" or "partner", which might well be TMI? Or would you say "friend"? I don't know if Spanish-speaking countries accept same-sex marriages, but if they do, then "esposa" or "esposo" would seem to be the correct term. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact legally married to my partner, who is much more to me than "un amigo". Clearly expressing that relationship is not imposing my lifestyle on anyone else. Others are of course free to do as they please. If I tell someone that I live with my "friend," share expenses and almost every dinner with him, wake up with him in the morning, take care of him when he is ill, and go out to dinner with him almost every Saturday night, my use of the word "friend" suggests that I have something I'm ashamed of or trying to hide. That is not the case. If a non-judgmental native speaker can offer any insight on the word most current in Spanish for describing a same-sex married partner, I'd be very grateful. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're legally married to him, why are you calling him your partner in English instead of your husband? I'd go with marido or esposo. —Angr (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think compañero or pareja is commonly used for that.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some gay men dislike "husband", while others insist upon it. If there's any consensus, it's that personal taste is king. The issue here seems to be how best to translate into Spanish the term one would ordinarily use in English. If you use "husband", I'd just go with "esposo", which sounds less bureaucratic in Spanish than "spouse" does in English. (Or if you're Waylon Smithers, go with "amigo" or "colega" or "cómplice" or whatever.) Off-topic: Years ago, I took a Russian class taught by an elderly lady who insisted that there were no terms in Russian for referring to same-sex partners. My friend and I (that's friend, not "friend") were instructed, "for the sake of argument," to invent hypothetical heterosexual partners. "Or else you will sound like women." I wonder how the situation would have been handled in an Arabic class. LANTZYTALK 20:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to know: When the word marriage is used to refer to a legal marriage between partners of the same sex, is that a bit colloquial, or is marriage the word which is used in the texts of laws too? (Maybe that is different in different countries.)
I ask that because in Germany, there are different laws about marriages between partners of different sex (there the marriage is called Ehe) and about marriages between partners of the same sex (there the marriage is called Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft, meaning registered partnership for life; and as far as I know, there are some minor differences in the regulations of these laws). German laws use different words – but I think that in everyday life, gay men usually refer to their partner as mein Mann (“Mann” is the German word for “man”, “mein Mann” is the usual term for “my husband” in everyday life), and lesbian women refer to their partner as meine Frau (“Frau” is the German word for “woman”, “meine Frau” is the usual term for “my wife” in everyday life). -- Irene1949 (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a bit obvious, but why not prepare a few phrases so you can ask your tutor, in Spanish, what the appropriate word should be when the subject comes up? Mention that you have a partner, point out that you are legally married, offer the English word you yourself use to introduce him to others, and ask the tutor what Spanish word he/she thinks would be the most appropriate equivalent. If nothing else, it will make for some useful and topical Spanish conversation practice. Karenjc 09:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try that. FWIW, in my jurisdiction there is no distinction in law or terminology between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. My partner and I don't choose to refer to each other as "husband" because if one of us refers to the other as "husband", some will assume that the one making the reference is the "wife". Since we haven't adopted the gendered roles implied by "wife" and "husband", we prefer not to use that terminology. Marco polo (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Marco Polo: I understand why you and your partner don't choose to refer to each other as "husband". I don't know if there are homosexuals in Germany who don't choose to refer to each other as "mein Mann" because of the same reasons. I think it's possible, but I can't tell. I don't know many homosexuals.
About laws, thank you for your information. -- Irene1949 (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In English, we tend to say that esposo means "husband" and esposa means wife, but what they really mean is "male spouse" and "female spouse". So I would think that same-sex married couples would each refer to each other in Spanish as esposo if male, and esposa if female. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A google search shows that both "esposo" and "pareja" are used, at about the same frequency, while "cónyuge" is rarely used. --NorwegianBluetalk 08:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Esposo, compañero and pareja can be used, each with a different meaning. Esposo expresses a legal bond like the married state (some people could use it rather improperly to speak of a long-time consolidated relationship with no marriage link). Its usage could cause some awkwardness in countries or regions in which same-sex marriage is a delicate topic. Compañero is broadly equivalent to partner. Pareja represents (to my ears) of the three terms the one that least remarks the commitment of the relation, but that's a very subtle impression; the term can also be perfectly applied to such relations, and as a sidenote, it has the feature of not giving any information on the sex of the partner. Pallida Mors 14:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much to Norwegian Blue and Pallida Mors for that very helpful information. I think I want to steer clear of esposo because it could be a bit jarring and possibly misleading, as "husband" can be. Also, my purpose is not really to emphasize our legally married status, which isn't so important to those who don't know us. I just want to be clear that I am in a stable cohabiting relationship that amounts to marriage (whether legal marriage is possible in the listener's jurisdiction or not). A Google search combining matrimonio mismo sexo with either pareja or compañero gets slightly more hits for pareja. Maybe pareja is the most natural term to use. I will try that one for now. Thanks again. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of "cónyuge". However, perhaps cortejo or novio could be used? Novio, whilst lexically meaning 'groom', is the most common word for 'boyfriend'. 'Cortejo' is a common term for boyfriend in some Latin American countries. --Soman (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but we are definitely beyond the boyfriend stage. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But on the other hand terms like "amigo" and "compañero" are quite in-the-closet, whilst 'novio' is quite direct that you are talking about an intimate relationship and not a platonic friendship. Do note that both 'novio' and 'cortejo' has a linguistic origin that denotes intention to marry (although not to much attention is given to that in current usage). --Soman (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Companion is not either "in the closet", it's politeness and public decorum, about refraining from advertising details of your personal life to strangers - and that goes for opposite-sex couples also, so don't cry "homophobe". Years ago, I was trying to come up with the right term to refer to a Lesbian friend's partner or companion, and she recommended "friend" - and I assure you, she was nowhere near any closets. Now, if you have some need or desire to tell the world all about your personal stuff they don't really need to know about, then "bed partner" or some equivalent would work fine. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a straight man shouldn't refer to his female spouse as his "wife", because that advertises details of his personal life to strangers, in violation of politeness and public decorum? Any acknowledgment of the existence of a person with whom one has an intimate relationship will do this, regardless of what term you use. I suppose if you don't want to "impose your lifestyle on others" you should simply refer to everyone in your life, from the co-worker whose name you can never remember to the person whom you share a bed with every night, as an "acquaintance". —Angr (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a straight man shouldn't introduce his wife to a stranger as "my bed partner". TMI. "Wife" is sufficient. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But "bed partner" doesn't provide any more information than "wife" does. If "bed partner" is TMI, so is "wife". —Angr (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Husband" and "Wife" and "Spouse" are publicly-accepted terms that have legal standing, whether same-sex or opposite sex. "Bed partner" means that you sleep together, which is a euphemism for sexual activity. Why does a stranger need to know that level of detail? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A gay marriage has legal standing too. The guy is married. His relationship has just as much "legal standing" as a husband/wife relationship does. Angr's analogy is correct - what on earth makes you think "bed partner" is more equivalent to "gay husband/partner" than "wife" is?? I am really having trouble figuring out the distinction you're trying to make here, and frankly you're just coming off as having an antiquated "gay?? I'd rather not hear about it" kind of attitude, or thinking that a gay marriage/partnership is just a couple of guys who go to the bathhouse together or something. At any rate, it's clear that this interpretation of the question is not what the asker is looking for and is being interpreted as borderline offensive, so I'd suggest not bringing it up any more. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after reading over this again, I think you might just not get what a same-sex partner is. You seem to be interpreting it as the gay equivalent to a friend with benefits or something. It's not - it's the traditional term gays use for someone they're in a committed relationship with (i.e. the closest possible thing to marriage in most places). There's no more sexual implication to it than there is to the terms husband and wife. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Spanish dictionary indicates that cónyuge is a term for husband or wife, and that the plural cónyuges means "husband and wife". That term is obviously from the Latin-based family that gives us the English terms "conjugal", "conjugate", "conjoin", etc. It comes from conjungare, which literally means "to yoke together".[1] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been suggested above, but have you actually asked your tutor? Because if he's a native speaker, he certainly ought to know. Meanwhile, I also have a book called Hot Spanish, or something like that. I'll see if it has anything. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotten lots of good info here. For Spanish in general, I recommend in general using the first responder's source,[2] which is kind of like a Spanish equivalent of EO as it gives word origins. Cónyuge is certainly a valid term, although it's possibly a bit formal. Novio works for "boyfriend" or "fiance", implying "just before the wedding", and essentially means "novice", so I don't think you want to use that. Cortejo likewise, as it seems to come from cortejar, "to court". Compañero sounds like it would be a really good choice, as it means "companion", a term often used in English as well, for the same concept. In fact, in Hot Spanish under "partner" it recommends compañero for just-plain "partner" as well as "domestic partner". The word for "bed partner" is compañero de cama, which again might be more information than your audience needs or wants to know. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
La coutume veut aussi que le gibier ne soit pas mangé tout de suite : « Dans notre civilisation avancée, ne sert-on pas, sur les tables somptueuses, certaines viandes qui ont déjà subi un commencement de décomposition ? On sait qu’un faisan, pour être prisé d’un gourmand, doit avoir un mois de mort, une bécasse, deux mois et demi. Entre une viande faisandée et une viande putréfiée, la différence n’est pas immense ; il en existe cependant une immense au point de vue gastronomique » écrit un auteur du XIXe siècle.
My translation is
Customarily, game is not eaten immediately. One writer of the 19th century wrote, "In our advanced civilization, do we not serve, upon sumptuous tables, certain meats that have already begun to decompose? We know that a pheasant, taken to a gourmand, must have been dead for a month, a woodcock, two and a half months. Between gamey meat and spoiled meat, the difference is not great; however, it is great from a gastronomic point of view."
but I don't want to misquote something. Any suggestions? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that really leaps out is "pour être prisé d’un gourmand". The verb here is "priser" not "prendre", so I'd translate this phrase "in order to be prized (or savoured) by a gourmand". Other than that, I think you're pretty close and your translation reads fluently and well. Karenjc 09:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was wondering about that. Thanks! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched a (somewhat interesting) show about some people living on a farm and using only Vistorian (English) tools & methods. As part of it, they went over setting movable type and described how the character string had to be built in the correct sequence so that when the typeset was turned over (mirror symmetry) it would print correctly. Building the type string incorrectly was named as "getting the wrong end of the stick" and described as the origin of this phrase. However my understanding is that the origin was much earlier than Gutenberg, from medieval times when sanitation involved cleaning oneself off with a handy stick. If the urge struck at night/after dusk and one reached for one's favourite toilet implement, one ran the risk of "getting the shitty end of the stick" - and this is the genesis of the various wrong/short/shitty-end expressions. I can't find documentary support for this in a quick check of online xxxtionaries, so asking here for clarification on the matter. Where does this phrase originate? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Short end of the stick" has a different meaning, and possibly a different origin. The toilet stick explanation seems to be most popular, with "worse end of the staff" (walking stick) being an alternative. It is possible that the phrase was used and popularised by printers, but neither this nor the "toilet stick" explanation seems to have much evidence to back them up because the phrase did not become popular until the late 1800s, and more probably derived from the earlier (1400s) upside down walking stick or staff. Dbfirs 09:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article talks about short, wrong, and (as an added bonus) shitty stick ends. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A simple possibility which suggests itself is drawing straws (sometimes twigs etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Drawing straws" dates from before 1832 (and maybe much earlier), so yes, just possibly, but why would a straw become a stick by the late 1800s, and why do we not find "wrong end of the straw", or "drawing the short stick"?
Hello, could anyone please tell me which meaning the word hard-edged has in this sentence: "The band never made a harder-edged LP, truly a celebration of rock music."
I'm unsure if hard-edged refers to the actual sound of the album (loud and heavy rock n'roll) or if it means that the album deals with difficult subjects that my offend some people (the meaning of "hard-edged" according to my dictionary). Thanks for your help! --Ummagumma002 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both of your suggestions seem to be possible, but on instinct I'd go with loud. At least that what the "celebration of rock" would imply to me. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd expect words like "controversial" to be applied in the 2nd case. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of a George Orwell quote: When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality", while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness", the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. (From Politics and the English Language). So if Orwell's to be believed it might mean nothing at all, but I think, yeah, it probably means "noisy". I see the article hard rock says that in the mid-60s bands began "adding to the standard genre ... harder sounds" and that Led Zeppelin "mixed the music ... with a more hard-edged form". Useful information, eh. 81.131.16.5 (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're spot-on by saying it doesn't mean anything ;). I've found that quote in an album review by a US music journalist whose language is quite difficult, to say at least. Anyway, isn't hard-edged used as a play on words here? --Ummagumma002 (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As ever, context is everything. Can you give us a link to the article in question? There may be more clues there. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, "an" is a typo of course. "The whole sentence reads: "Along with songs like Now I’m Here and Tenement Funster, the band (Queen) never made a harder-edged album (Sheer Heart Attack), truly a celebration of rock for rock's sake." And since these two songs are two of the heaviest songs on one of Queen's heaviest album, I think "hard-edged" almost certainly refers to the actual sound of the music. --Ummagumma002 (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then here's my 2p worth, being a fan of this LP. As opposed to the first two Queen albums, SHA is not only a venture more towards heavy rock, but also away from the prog type music of Q1 and Q2. You could also make a case for the lyrics developing a harder edge from the first two albums: more teenage angst rather than love and thrills. This LP marked their transition from a pop group to a rock group. It was, however, ironic that the subsequent LPs (Night at the Opera/Day at the Races) moved them back into the mainstream. IMHO SHA represents the pinnacle of their achievement as a rock band. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was just wondering if the title of that movie can be seen as a proper sentence. With subject, object, verb, and being grammatically correct. 99.226.86.116 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. "One" is a noun (as in "I have two cars: one is red and one is purple") and is the subject, the verb is "flew", and the rest is a prepositional phrase modifying the verb. --Anonymous, edited 23:23 UTC, December 26, 2010.
Right, it's a complete sentence, even though it's not a complete thought. That is, "one of what ?" StuRat (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One flying thing flew over the cuckoo's nest. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly complete thought. "One" is a valid third-person pronoun, and in that context, the sentance expresses a complete thought. Considering the "cuckoo's nest" is the insane asylum, reading the book also makes it clear that the antecedent of the pronoun is Chief Bromden. Also, as the article One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel) explains, the title comes from a nursery rhyme, in which case the "One" is one of three geese named in the rhyme (the other two being the one that flew east, and the one that flew west). --Jayron32 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"One" here is a noun, as I said, not a pronoun. It's expressing a numerical value. Consider: "Two flew east or west; three flew south for the winter; one flew over the nest." --Anonymous, 06:00 UTC, December 27, 2010.
I'd say those numbers are all acting as pronouns, not nouns, in that sentence, as they're standing in for the full noun phrases "two geese", "three geese", "one goose". —Angr (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and no doubt that's why the question came up, since there's obviously something missing from the title. Reminds me of the book/film "Once Were Warriors". I have a need to say "Once WE were Warriors", instead. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing obviously or in any other way missing at all, Stu. It's simply a sentence that made perfect, 100% sense, in the context in which it originally appeared. Divorced from that context, it inspires the obvious question - "one what?" - but that doesn't suddenly mean it's missing anything. -- Jack of Oz[your turn] 20:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is divorced from that context, something is obviously missing. Only after reading the poem or book does it make sense. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A baby cuckoo, not in a cuckoo's nest.It's a valid sentence, in the sense that "My brother is the king of France" is a valid sentence, but it may not make "100% sense", as you put it, because it refers to an object that cannot exist. Marnanel (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that? What object referred to in the sentence "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" cannot exist? In the original nursery rhyme, it was a goose. Surely a goose can exist. In the novel, it referred to a patient in an insane asylum. Surely a mental patient can exist. Right? Pais (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cuckoos do not build nests. "The cuckoo's nest" is not the name of an object in the real world. Marnanel (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Having reviewed the Cuckoo article, I see that there are some cuckoo species, mostly in the New World, which do build nests. I apologise. However, I am fairly sure that the line from the nursery rhyme (presumably from the Old World) is intended as nonsense. Marnanel (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
