Marriage necessitates a transfer?

[Deranged Nasat]

They're slightly more normal than duck or chuck

I've heard "duckie" or "duck" used as a term of endearment on occasion, but "chuck" is new to me.

You've never seen Wallace and Gromit?

 

[Christopher]

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?)

Yes, that's exactly what it means. A spouse is a husband or wife, period. It's from the Latin word for bride or groom (sponsus/a), which comes from the word meaning betrothal or binding promise (related to "sponsor"). It's a cognate of Spanish esposo/a, husband/wife, and French épouse, wife.

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.

Actually it's the other way around. "Mate" originally came from a word meaning someone you share a meal with, a tablemate (perhaps etymologically related to "meat"), or by extension a houseguest. (Much like "companion," which literally means someone you share bread with.) It was used to mean an associate or comrade by the 14th century, and came to mean a crewmate on a ship by the 15th century. Its earliest known use to mean a member of a wedded pair is from the mid-16th century, with its use for animals emerging, presumably by analogy, around the end of the 16th century.

So what seems to us like the primary usages are actually the more recent ones, not the more ancient ones. Which kind of makes sense, if you think about it. The more recent the usage, the more prominent it would logically tend to be in our awareness.

And I guess it shouldn't surprise me that a word as broadly defined as "mate" would have a fairly simple concept at its core -- someone you share your table with, someone you share your belongings with (since the word came from times when your food was something you usually acquired or grew yourself, rather than going out to a restaurant to eat). That implies trust, friendship, partnership, intimacy, a whole gamut of connections.

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.

It's generally used in SF to refer to a union that's equivalent to marriage but in some alien way so that it isn't quite marriage. Perhaps it is by analogy with animals, a term used for nonhumans while marriage is used for humans -- similarly to how aliens in Trek and other SF are generally called males and females rather than men and women (terms which technically apply only to Homo sapiens).

I've heard "duckie" or "duck" used as a term of endearment on occasion, but "chuck" is new to me.

You've never seen Wallace and Gromit?

Oh! I have, but I didn't remember that term being used there.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

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.

Actually it's the other way around. "Mate" originally came from a word meaning someone you share a meal with, a tablemate (perhaps etymologically related to "meat"), or by extension a houseguest. (Much like "companion," which literally means someone you share bread with.) It was used to mean an associate or comrade by the 14th century, and came to mean a crewmate on a ship by the 15th century. Its earliest known use to mean a member of a wedded pair is from the mid-16th century, with its use for animals emerging, presumably by analogy, around the end of the 16th century.

So what seems to us like the primary usages are actually the more recent ones, not the more ancient ones. Which kind of makes sense, if you think about it. The more recent the usage, the more prominent it would logically tend to be in our awareness.

Aha! Thanks, I wasn't aware of the etymological history (well, obviously ). I guess I can't back up my personal tastes with anything other than my own emotional biases, then.

That said, I note use of "mate" to refer to a human marriage partner apparently predates its use to refer to non-sapient animals? And even before it became associated with intimate relationships it was a word concerned with shared experiences and comfortable human contact? That's interesting; personally, I can take that as justifying my use of the word as a favoured alternative to "lover" or "partner".

(Well, since my assumptions were inaccurate, I have to salvage something )

And I guess it shouldn't surprise me that a word as broadly defined as "mate" would have a fairly simple concept at its core -- someone you share your table with, someone you share your belongings with (since the word came from times when your food was something you usually acquired or grew yourself, rather than going out to a restaurant to eat). That implies trust, friendship, partnership, intimacy, a whole gamut of connections.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, either, that it relates back to sharing food in some manner.

 

[Mike Winters]

Keep in mind in the episode "Reunion" where Worf kills Duras, he announces that K'Ehleyr was his mate.

Mike

 

[NrobbieC]

Klingons use the term mate, but they have a more...animalistic view toward couplings.

 

[JD]

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?

That's the term I usually use in this situation.

 

[Paper Moon]

Ha, I love the TrekBBS. This discussion is great.

I personally don't care for "mate." As others have said, just a little too sexualized for my tastes.

While I can understand a dislike for "partner," based on its formality, I've never experienced it that way, and I do like the term. On occasion, I have been know to refer to my long-time girlfriend as my "partner," to signify that our relationship is long past being "casual," the way "boy/girlfriend" can sometimes imply.

I really like the term "significant other," though I find that it comes across as a bit of a euphemism sometimes.

But I think the best term, by far, is "spouse." I find it in common enough use that it doesn't get funny looks, and it is free of gender biases, which is enormously helpful. My folks almost exclusively use "spouse" these days.

It's interesting, this discussion is heavily influenced, for me, by debates on gay marriage in the USA. Might be why I'm more amenable to the term partner (I know plenty of gay couples who refer to their "partners," even though they are [now] legally married), but why I ultimately prefer "spouse."

Going back to the OP's question, though, I think "rank [really] doth hath its privileges." Explains why main characters are allowed to use runabouts for personal use. I think, once you reach LTCDR or a senior staff level position or whatever, you are afforded certain discretionary privileges. Not that I think Starfleet requires married couples to separate (except under special circumstances, I suppose), but I suspect they'd be more amenable to the wishes of two CDRs than two LTJGs.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I don't think "mate" is weird: in fact, I think it's perfectly fine.

In Australia, a "mate" is used in quite generic terms with everyone, including acquaintances and total strangers, ie. "G'day mate, can I shout you a beer?"

Or to describe a close friend, usually of the same sex.

 

[JoeZhang]

^There's always "lover." That used to have a tawdry connotation, but I don't think it really does anymore.

It seems like a more charged word than spouse or mate. "Lover" is very...emotional.

I used to have a French girlfriend, when someone asked at a partner "is this your boyfriend?" she turned slower and say "what is this boyfriend? He is my lover" in a strong French accent.

 

[Avro Arrow]

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.

Not lit-specific, but it's also been addressed in DS9... Jadzia and Worf were both allowed to stay at the same posting after their marriage, and neither of them were captains. In general, Starfleet doesn't seem to have a problem with married couples serving together.

IRL, every company I have ever worked for has had some kind of rule about this. In a previous place I worked, two non-management co-workers got married, so one of them had to leave the department. For my current employer, I think the rule is that someone cannot directly or indirectly report to their spouse. It would be interesting to hear what kind of regulations there are regarding married couples in current-day militaries.

(To the other discussion, the most common connotation I hear for the word "lover" is the person that someone is cheating on their spouse with. Presumably this is the "tawdry" connotation that Christopher alluded to?)

 

[Mage]

Partner seems like a very normal word.

I sometimes get the idea that in a lot of English-speaking countries, the word partner is used in homosexual relationships. I see it used a lot in American tv-shows when a gay or lesbian character introduces their significant other.

My girlfriend has been using the term partner a lot lately when she's talking about me to other people, since she finds the term 'boyfriend' to be to childish to describe the man she's been in a relationship with for almost 5 years now. We've been living together for almost 3 years, and we are planning on getting married. But what do you call eachother untill then? Sofar, partner seems to work quite well, and we'll be using it for a while I think.

 

[Christopher]

(To the other discussion, the most common connotation I hear for the word "lover" is the person that someone is cheating on their spouse with. Presumably this is the "tawdry" connotation that Christopher alluded to?)

Well, there is that, but I was thinking about its more general usage to mean a person one was in a non-marital sexual relationship with, and the way our culture used to see any sex outside of marriage as tawdry and unacceptable.

We've been living together for almost 3 years, and we are planning on getting married. But what do you call eachother untill then?

If you're formally engaged, then the term would be "fiancé" for the man and "fiancée" for the woman.