help me out here

What do you call someone who is more than an acquaintance, but less than a full-fledged friend? This isn't a set-up for a joke; I actually want to know. Is there an elegant descriptive term for it? What do you use when describing a person such as this in your own life?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Boy, that's a toughie. But, I hear you. I'm constantly evaluating the acquantance/friendship status of people I know, as I think it's very easy to assume someone whom I might tend to call a "friend" really should be in the acquaintance category, although frequently they definitely seem to fit into an in-between category, but what to call them?

Hm.

"Buddy" or "pal" sounds too generic and informal.

"Confidante" implies a greater level of intimacy, but sounds too formal and limiting.

"Familiar" also comes to mind, but I think most people associate the word with Wiccan or pagan practice, so might give the wrong impression to some.

I was thinking of perhaps "parami", which I envisioned as a derivation of "paramour", but the latter has an unsavory connotation, as it refers to an illicit relationship (although, in a way it's also quite an appropriate term. In Buddhism, as I just now discovered, "parami" refers to the ten qualities leading to perfection of spirit: Generosity, Morality, Renunciation, Wisdom, Energy, Patience, Truthfulness, Resolution, Compassion and Equanimity; all qualities one would ideally seek in a potential friend).

Maybe "friendling" or "penamicus" (which if my broken Latin is anywhere near correct, would I believe translate into "almost/nearly friend")?
COMTE | 11.30.06 - 1:28 pm |
Anonymous said…
I have avoided the problem by describing a person in that position as a friend, usually with a qualifier. The logic goes as follows: an acquaintance is someone whom you know after a meeting or two, and who might recognize you on sight. A friend is someone with whom you share a tighter bond than mere acquaintanceship, but there are levels of "friend."

For instance, I describe a lot of theater people I know as "theater friends." I guess I put the qualifier on because that's the context in which I know the person. I have several distinct circles of friends, and I'll describe someone outside the current circle as an "XYZ friend." They're still friends, in the way I understand the word, but our friendship seems to be limited to one context.

Someone with whom I share a deeper bond for whatever reason (such as you, PJ), becomes "my friend PJ" and if that isn't descriptive enough for whomever I'm talking to, I'll append "who I met doing theater" or something similar to the description.

It is perhaps a subtle distinction, but you're talking about subtle distinctions, and that's how I've ended up handling it. Honestly, it's not something I'd really given conscious thought until now.

If you really want a separate word, I ecommend "frequaintaince." It contains parts of "friend," "acquaintance," and "frequent" all in one. Perfect!
Ian J | 11.30.06 - 1:51 pm |
(egg) said…
You know, I actually like "pal." Good on you, Comte; thanks for reminding me. If we use it more, it'll lose it's formality (& 40s hard-boiled detective connotations).

I'm also incredibly fond of "friendling" because it's adorable, but it also sounds a little like "well, you're a little less than a friend." Penamicus might be latinly accurate, but it's not elegant.

I'm going with pal for now. It's fun, it's short & sweet, it's non-offensive.

Keep 'em coming; this is helpful!
PJ | 11.30.06 - 2:01 pm |
(egg) said…
Oh, Team NASA! I love *love* LOVE "frequaintance." Holy shit, somebody should hire you to make up words.
PJ | 11.30.06 - 2:03 pm |
Anonymous said…
I aim to please. Agreed, though, "pal" is a word you can use and people will know what you mean, without having to explain yourself. Obviously I'm just going to have to get frequaintance out there.

You heard it here first, folks.
Ian J | 11.30.06 - 6:55 pm |
Anonymous said…
Yeah, and then I had to Google for it. Only one other reference, but it's exactly the same meaning, so I feel moderately vindicated:

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/for...ad.php? p=220144
Ian J | 11.30.06 - 8:04 pm
(egg) said…
HA! I love that you googled it. I was totally gonna do that.
PJ | 11.30.06 - 9:21 pm |
Anonymous said…
(Over-simplification alert!)

I say if they're more than an acquaintance, they're a friend. It should be obvious by one's actions (not labels, which are for jars, you racist) who are the closer friends and who are simply fun people to see at parties.

And who's keeping track, really? Life's to short to codify everything, Peggy. You racist.

Or maybe when you describe them, you use air quotes. (eg. My "friend" Basil is a sanctimonious jerk!)
Basil | 12.01.06 - 8:33 pm |

Popular posts from this blog

... and a gun to go with it

de plane! de plane!

well, just don't