![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Word up!
I suppose there’s some titillation value in the words Merriam-Webster choose to add to their dictionary each year. So this year I took the time to read the Boston Globe article that covered it.
And, of course, I also checked out the accompanying list of new words and the original Merriam-Webster list.
And there, toward the end of the list, was a word that really surprised me: polyamory.
They define it as “the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time”, which is actually a pretty reasonable definition. It captures the openness idea, which is often overlooked. The only thing I think they missed was “the capacity to…”, which would admit polyfolk who aren’t actively maintaining multiple intimate relationships.
They also list polyamorist and polyamorous, which both make sense and are commonly used. But there’s also “polyamories”, a plural, which doesn’t seem to make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me. Polyamory is an abstract noun, and as such, the plural “polyamories” makes about as much sense as “bisexualities” or “peaces” or “sanities”.
But, hey, it’s a little bit more public awareness and acceptance of the idea, which can only be good. Cujos to Merriam-Webster! Now if only LiveJournal would put it in their spelling checker…
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject