On an almost cellular level, I sincerely abhor the new catch-all catch-phrase when someone thinks they're making a clever point: "I'm just saying." Or - even worse - without the pronoun: "Just saying." Oh, really ? Is *that* what you're just doing? Saying? Well, I'm just punching you in the nose, you self-satisfied fuckwad. I despise it. It has this air of undeserved smug finality, as if god itself has made this person the mouthpiece of the final say in the matter. Always with the implied silence of an ellipsis, as if daring you to disagree with their obviously airtight summation. Oh, I see! If it's you that's saying, well - that's it, then! Case closed, everybody! He just said! Please don't just say, "Just saying." It's rude. Say what you want to say, and then, if it's a spirited discussion, maybe back it up with a few well-reasoned points. Then let others say. It totally works.
Comments
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 |
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 |
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 |
PJ | 11.30.06 - 2:03 pm |
You heard it here first, folks.
Ian J | 11.30.06 - 6:55 pm |
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/for...ad.php? p=220144
Ian J | 11.30.06 - 8:04 pm
PJ | 11.30.06 - 9:21 pm |
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 |