Why did Fabian & Corsi have to be separated by assignments, while Riker & Troi, and Picard & Crusher did not? And if the answer involves "Riker and Picard are both Captains"... le sigh. Just thought of this, so if it's already been addressed elsewhere, please let me know.
IIRC, Fabian and Corsi themselves decided that one should transfer off the da Vinci; it wasn't Starfleet's directive.
So was Corsi afraid she couldn't do her job if Fabian was still around once they were married? I really don't remember the specifics surrounding the decision or it's necessitation.
Like Judith said, Starfleet didn't require them to be on different ships, it was their decision. If I recall, Corsi was uncomfortable with having her mate onboard, in case it caused a conflict of interest and made her less able to focus exclusively on performing her duty and protecting the ship. So they discussed it and agreed one would transfer; but at the same time they married, to reinforce their commitment even as they were separating physically. (PS: I know I sound a bit weird, using "mate" for "long-term sexual companion". Sorry, but I don't like "partner" (too dry and businesslike) or "boyfriend/girlfriend" (makes me think of children play-mating). So "mate" it is.)
^There's always "lover." That used to have a tawdry connotation, but I don't think it really does anymore.
It seems too flippant to me. You may be right about the general trend, but personally I can't quite shake connotations of superficiality. Not necessarily distasteful; the word "lover" seems (in my discerning opinion ) suited to pleasant liaisons and sexual discovery as much as it does uncaring emphasis on physical gratification, but it just doesn't seem right for me as a description for long-term mates. I'm conscious that this is an odd topic for me to be getting into, so I'll just get back on track by saying that, if we see more of the SCE crew post-Destiny (someone please activate the KRAD Signal), it might be nice to see the married-on-different-ships relationship play out, as a contrast to the set up with Picard/Crusher and Riker/Troi. We've had a lot of subplots dealing with the issues facing married couples on the same ship; let's have the spotlight turn for a bit to those who maintain such relationships long-distance (which, it's often hinted, is far more common in Starfleet).
I don't think "mate" is weird: in fact, I think it's perfectly fine. I do agree that "partner" sounds too much business-like, and that over a certain age "boyfriend/girlfriend" start to sound silly. I do like "lover", and it doesn't carry any meaning of being superficial or fleeting to my ear (on the other hand, I'm Italian, so take it as you wish ), but it does sound like a very emotionally-charged word. I am getting used to let my inner geek out and use "companion" (Star Trek and Doctor Who reference in one shot!). Plus, in Italian it is used in the same sense of "comrade", so the commie in me is quite pleased, too.
"Mate" does sound awkward to me; it sounds like you're talking about lions in a nature documentary or something. I don't find "lover" superficial, because taken literally, it means someone who loves you. And yes, it's emotionally charged, but my impression is that that was the whole point -- a term for a deep, committed relationship that isn't (or isn't yet) a marriage.
^Which is another reason it doesn't fit, because in British/Australian usage it just means "friend," not "committed romantic/sexual partner."
^Yeah, but in the same sense that "buddy" or "pal" or "bro" are used as friendly forms of address to strangers.
Then there's "significant other", which has the added bonus of sounding wonderfully scifi-jargon-ish abstract ... 'cause what is new life and new civilizations but significant others?
Personally I find 'mate' a little clinical. Being British it does have the connotation of being a random friend - your mates are generally the people you go down the pub with of an evening. Also it's a bit 'breedercentric' (to coin a phrase) as the zoological sense suggests a hetrosexual other-half with whom one plans to reproduce. Many relationships (hetro-, homo-, or otherwise) aren't about procreation. In fact in this sense I'd almost expect 'mate' to be the sort of term one would use to refer to an ex-partner with whom one has children. I've always thought that 'spouse' was a good gender-neutral unloaded word, although I don't think I've ever heard anyone use it in real life - I first came across it in a novel and assumed it was an Americanism for a concept we don't have over here... (although does it explicitly refer to someone you are married to?) At a risk of taking this too far, 'me-in-law' would seem a logical extension of the terminology for a marital partner. However I live in a country where terminology is picked by committee, so my other half is referred to by the cumbersome and cold term 'civil partner'.
This has become a very interesting discussion. True, true. Being British myself, I have indeed used it in that context before (though not as often as most of my friends, probably because I was more comfortable with the word as implying a deeper relationship, at least at first). It might seem silly, that I have two different senses of the word, but on the whole I have no problem with the dual usage; to me "mate" just has different impact depending on the context it's used in. Like the word "friend", I suppose; calling a casual acquaintance or a stranger "friend" is very different from using the word with a true companion, though I've no doubt the former situation borrows from the latter, suggesting a somewhat exaggerated sense of goodwill when you appropriate "friend" to use on a stranger. Perhaps the latter usage is the more "correct" one, but in that case surely it's the use of "mate" to mean friend in British/Australian vernacular that's the "corrupted" use? I sort of assumed the same sort of thing is happening there as happens with "friend" - when a friend calls me "mate", they're borrowing the shell of something more powerful than is suited to the content they're currently wrapping it in, for effect if nothing else. Sort of a linguistic false advertising, I guess, wrapping a mild feeling in the packaging that usually contains a strong one, to bypass any awkwardness and encourage acceptance of the bond between you. It's something different behind the word but paradoxically it isn't? A least that's been my assumption. It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of "mate" in the common casual use is a reflection on the emotional power of the word in its "true" use. So I might as well acknowledge the power of the original. Oh, I'm gabbling again . Interesting. To me, it speaks to the depth of the relationship - perhaps because it does suggest something primal; that, rather than a relationship defined only by changeable social conventions or current whims it points to a bond that's rooted in the most instinctive behaviours, enhanced by our sapience. A connection that resonates on every significant level of our beings. In all, I suppose I'm just one of those people who doesn't shy away from our "natural" heritage; I don't necessarily see "animalistic" connotations as degrading. Also, for what it's worth, "mate" doesn't carry any "breeder-centric" connotations to me either (though I can see why logically it might), but of course that's sort of the point - I have my own sense of what it means (and I guess I have a habit (bad habit?) of finding my own way around the language). I've noted it's fairly common in Sci-fi, including Trek, to use "mate" for a long-term or serious partner; I find that makes some degree of sense. After all, whatever cultural systems a given race has governing initimate relationships, all those races are responding to the same underlying directives, and I think the term "mate" acknowledges that, speaks to a common ground the majority of species would share.