?

Log in

No account? Create an account

duogamous, quarryette, pickpocketeer

« previous entry | next entry »
Oct. 30th, 2014 | 07:00 pm

Some new words for your delight, from the list of Words That Don't Exist But Should™:

duogamous /ˈdu.oʊˌɡəməs/, /ˈdju.oʊˌɡəməs/ adj
Polygamous with two partners.
quarryette /ˌkwɒriˈɛt/ n
A small quarry.
pickpocketeer /ˌpɪkpɒkɪtˈɪɹ/ n
Someone who pickpockets; a pickpocket.

The first one I've seen in use on the Internet; the second one is due to moth_wingthane; and the third one popped into the head of yours truly.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {8}

Aurifer Salavor

(no subject)

from: aurifer
date: Nov. 3rd, 2014 07:25 am (UTC)
Link

Technically, one could say that first one does exist, except I'd expect it to be bigamous. Two partners, not twin partners. Duo seems to be a much more cohesive word (possibly on purpose).


Or maybe one can be digamous, where one has a subpartner and a superpartner?

Reply | Thread

Schnee

(no subject)

from: schnee
date: Nov. 3rd, 2014 09:48 am (UTC)
Link

Superpartner, or Super Partner? Or maybe Oh! Super Partner. :)

Well, jokes aside, good point about "bigamous" — I think that one's being avoided due to its negative connotations (though that's just a stab in the dark on my part). "bigamous" implies – in practice, anyway – a level of secrecy and deception; "duogamous", on the other hand, is a value-neutral term simply describing a situation where someone has two partners.

"duogamous with partners that are also twins" could be "didymogamous", I think. Neither that word nor "didymogamy" have any Google hits yet, so consider them coined as well. :)

I like the idea of having a separate specific term for a relationship with a primary and a secondary partner (or superpartner and subpartner, if you will), but I'm not sure I'd use "digamous" for that; the word feels like it should be synonymous to "duogamous" (or "bigamous", minus that one's connotations and implications).

Reply | Parent | Thread

Aurifer Salavor

(no subject)

from: aurifer
date: Nov. 3rd, 2014 07:31 pm (UTC)
Link

Yeah. To be honest, I had just realized—after thinking hard about it—that there was a real difference between di- and bi-. I had thought both were 'two', but it was one of those things like hexagesimal and sexigesimal. The latter is most often used, but the former technically works the same.

But then I realized bi- is "two" and di- is more like "two parts". If you were disexual, you would have two sexualities that work together. (A concept foreign enough that Chrome's spellcheck doesn't recognize that pluralization.) Digamy would be a marriage split into two parts, rather than a marriage containing two people. What about a marriage where things change completely between the time the couple are children and the time they both become adults? They could be married all their life, but with two distinct stages to the marriage. As opposed to arranged marriages, where the marriage itself doesn't come into play until both are of age.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Aurifer Salavor

(no subject)

from: aurifer
date: Nov. 3rd, 2014 07:45 pm (UTC)
Link

It looks like 'disexual' is already used in science, so I'll have to see how they define it.

Reply | Parent | Thread