Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Where life irritates science.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                         

Finer Shades of Meaning for "Love"

A new romantic lexicon so you can always tell your partner where you stand
  (+7, -5)
(+7, -5)
  [vote for,
against]

The words "I Love You" carry various amounts of emotional weight depending on the context, and it's not always clear when to use them or how they will be interpreted. I propose a new set of words with clearly defined shades of meaning. I know, we've already got words like "platonic love", "lust", "adoration." But it's awkward to say "I love you platonically" and I'm not sure if it even makes sense to say "I lust you" (although I've used that expression before.) I want single words for complicated situations like "I am attracted to you, but not as attracted to you as you are to me," or "I like the way your body feels, and I like you, even though you are annoying," and especially for "I am more than attracted to you, and I need you, but I don't want to bust out the magic ILY just yet."
Wisconsin, Feb 22 2005

I need a bucket! Anti-unrequited-love_20drug
[po, Feb 22 2005]

Another word for love http://mfile.akamai...1_01.asx?obj=v40427
(Requires Media Player) [Klaatu, Feb 22 2005]

[link]






       (holds thumb and forefinger apart an inch wide) this much.   

       I think the concept's good, but your examples are describing something that is not love. Why not use words like "lust" and "adoration" if that's what you mean?
Worldgineer, Feb 22 2005
  

       Nuance is where the thrill lies. Specially creating words to define *exactly* how you feel and why, rather than leaving it to your bearing, tone, the context &c is going to make it sound like you consider your target to be Aspergeriffic.
calum, Feb 22 2005
  

       I use 'em, they're called conjunctions:
I love you, for I lost another
I love you, and the blues.
I love you, forsaking neither another nor hope for others.
I love you, but I feel like the nasty.
I love you, or have I told you already?
I love you, yet there's that trust thing.
I love you, so? (my personal favorite)
reensure, Feb 22 2005
  

       what is this thing called, love?
po, Feb 22 2005
  

       If you were to bake this, make sure to make enough levels to allow the "I love you more today than yesterday" song to keep it's meaning.
Worldgineer, Feb 22 2005
  

       Learn French. <ducks>
Shz, Feb 22 2005
  

       How many words in French? <doves>
Worldgineer, Feb 22 2005
  

       <pigeons>
po, Feb 22 2005
  

       So, the invention here is for new words? Just so you know, word inventions are out of scope for the halfbakery. Proposals for language extensions or new languages altogether still have a place here, though. Even though you describe this as a lexicon or "set of words" I think this is right on the edge of not being a halfbakery invention.
bristolz, Feb 22 2005
  

       [bris]: Yes, the idea is for new words. [World], [reensure]: are you seriously suggesting I just become more articulate? Come on now. [calum]:She suffers from no form of autism, but she /is/ a little glassy, er, starry-eyed. And maybe I was trying to be too snarky when I wrote the idea, but I guess I was going for more like a terror-alert system for romance. e.g. "We are at Love Alert Yellow, strong feelings are mutual, the relationship is positive, but we are nowhere near wedding-ring territory. Leave the duct tape at home, unless you're into that kind of thing."
Wisconsin, Feb 22 2005
  

       These words already exist. They are: eros, ludus, mania, storge, agape, philia, pragma.
nineteenthly, Feb 22 2005
  

       Storge? I know the Greeks had a word for everything, so what was storge? I agree with Calum - nuance is everything. If you want precision, how about numerical values. Or (if more dimensions of meaning are needed), why not use complex numbers for complex situations ("I love you 3+4i")?
Basepair, Feb 22 2005
  

       ..on second thoughts, this could cause misunderstandings if you're with group consisting of twins and a woman with glasses ("I love you 2 + 4i"...thwack!)
Basepair, Feb 22 2005
  

       Storge is fraternal love, though not necessarily between siblings. It's intimacy and commitment without passion.
nineteenthly, Feb 22 2005
  

       Aha. I can only say that they could have picked a prettier word, but good on them anyway. Can we get definitions for the others? (Eros I can guess, but agape leaves me, well, agape.) Can these terms be mapped onto a complex number plane (if, say, the real component is friendliness and general jollity, and the unreal component is lust?)
Basepair, Feb 22 2005
  

       There is actually a system for classifying some of them, based on different combinations of intimacy, passion and commitment. I don't remember the exact combinations, but there are eight possibilities including non-love. Agape is all of them, i think.
What you could do, similar to the complex number idea, is locate your feelings on a three-dimensional graph with coordinates between zero and one. I think hyperbole would probably lead people to plot their own feelings off the graph a lot, and fear of hurt feelings would wipe out non-integral values. On the other hand, some people might provoke you to use negative values.
nineteenthly, Feb 22 2005
  

       Damn, I forgot commitment (as usual). So, we need three-dimensional numbers, alas. But, I have learned something - thank you.
Basepair, Feb 22 2005
  

       There could be other forms of "love", where some dimensions are negative and others positive. Ouch!
nineteenthly, Feb 22 2005
  

       Wouldn't work, because anything less than 100% couldn't be used for fear of offence.
Loris, Feb 23 2005
  

       This might be more true for romantic love, but some people might be scared off by their lover's profession of 100% everything. There could be inaccuracy in both directions. Also, people do say they love each other without meaning it. Besides that, there are different kinds of love, between friends, family members and so forth, when saying you were 100% of a particular aspect would be inappropriate.
nineteenthly, Feb 23 2005
  

       <Wisconsin> Come on, love.
First, love
Later, love
Late, love
Last, love
reensure, Feb 23 2005
  

       Maybe try different anagrams of the word, so you could be in evol or lveo instead of in love.
nineteenthly, Feb 24 2005
  

       I <points to chart> you. "huh¿" -- never mind.
not_only_but_also, Feb 25 2005
  

       Then again, you could be in "lurve" in a Barry White sort of way, or "luv" in a cutesy manner.
nineteenthly, Feb 25 2005
  

       //A new romantic lexicon//   

       xref: Duran Duran, Spandau Ballet   

       I frequently make up new words as I have a linguist compatriot who assures me that this is common practice in the English language and is perfectly acceptable. A good example of this is the practice of adding "-esque" to a word to create a new adjective or using a noun as a verb e.g. to bin something. After all, Shakespeare invented many words. Here are some examples of words I have added to my own personal vocabulary:   

       Solitudinous - the opposite of multitudinous.
Socsian - prone to mysteriously getting lost.
Lapictatious - awaiting meaning.
harderthanjesus, Mar 01 2005
  

       Disclaimer: I loath suffixes, and prefer to limit their use.   

       Nonetheless, I accept a word like 'promptable' or even 'unpromptable' when to do so clears the soup.
reensure, Mar 01 2005
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle