Dear Billy,
The way I see it, you're asking about three questions rolled into one. The first one: "Is there a perfectly suitable word in English for my disposition?" The answer would be, it doesn't look like it. Based on the theory that because our culture is so relationship-obsessed we lack suitable terms for the confidently s(w)ingle, I e-mailed a few professors in the linguistics department at the University of Toronto. Here's what Professor Ron Smyth had to say:
"It's a common misconception that if a language doesn't have a single word for a concept, then that concept is either not part of the culture, or not valued enough to have its own word. This assumption is wrong. For example, there is a long-standing notion that "Eskimos" have 14 different words for snow. This is supposed to be because they are more likely to see and value different kinds of snow. The problem is that Inuktitut is a language where phrases are joined together in a single word - what we call an agglutinating language - so even circumlocutions like "wet sticky snow" come out as one word. This is different from English, where we would count "wet sticky snow" as three words. But really it is not different from Inuktitut."
Professor Smith actually feels you have adequately expressed your nature in your letter. "The number of words it takes is not the issue," he says. "The real question is how specific a definition he wants to provide. The more restrictions he cares to place on it, the more detailed the description will have to be. We have lots of ways of describing this type of person using what is known as ‘collocations' - words that are often used together in a certain way, with a literal meaning. For example, we say ‘salt and pepper,' not ‘pepper and salt.' We could describe the writer, then, as someone who is ‘playing the field,' ‘dating,' ‘a confirmed bachelor,' ‘a slut,' ‘a runaround,' ‘a serial monogamist,' ‘a playboy,' ‘not ready to settle down,' ‘not the marrying kind,' ‘not in/ready for a committed relationship,' ‘a cold fish' and so on." It's hard not to notice how many of the terms offered by Professor Smyth have negative and somewhat anti-relationship connotations.
To answer your second question: "When will there be a word for me that doesn't imply I am an aberration, worthy of a '50s-era teen hygiene film and shock treatment, or an ageing playboy who lures desperate, affluent divorcees aboard my ramshackle yacht?" This is difficult to say. Would you be happy with soon, I hope? Dozens of positive words exists for pairs: sweethearts, lovers, paramours, I could go on (but I also want you to keep in mind how woefully inadequate many coupling words are for even the average relationship). I think you'll have to stand in line after the 47 different types of queers and the 83 different types of women, though, so it may be a while.
Question three: "If there ever is a specific word, how long will it take for it to be deemed dictionary worthy?" Apparently, in a broader sense, this is one of the most common questions asked of the folks at Merriam-Webster "The answer," says the Web site, "is simple: usage." If you want to read more about this interesting process, visit www.m-w.com/help/faq/words_in.htm.
And if you come up with one yourself, Billy, I'll be happy to use it firmly and frequently in my column.
