“Everything Exists in the Word…” Lover

Sometime back, I shared a quote from Pablo Neruda, but didn’t tell you that it contained my favorite bit of writing in the entire universe. I’m turned on by what those words say and the way they are put together. When I recite them, and I do it often, my heart jumps and giggles and my brain dreams dark fiction.

So when I opened my birthday present, and I saw my Piano Man had outdone himself, again, I understood I had to share my new-old word-baby with my Wicked Darlings—often, too.

Every Wednesday, until I forget or get too busy or just well, you know how that works, I will take a word from my 151-year-old dictionary and compare its old definition to its modern meaning. While I typed this, my heartthrob lay next to me in bed, wearing nothing but glasses and a grin, so my first choice was obvious:

Lover - lov·er [luhv-er] noun
1. a person who is in love with another.
2. a person who has a sexual or romantic relationship with another.
3. a person with whom one conducts an extramarital sexual affair.
4. a person who has a strong enjoyment or liking for something, as specified: a lover of music.
5. a person who loves,  especially a person who has or shows a warm and general affectionate regard for others: a lover of mankind.
Origin: 1175–1225; Middle English; see love, -er1

Now, the same word as defined 151 years ago:
Lover, n. One who loves; one who has a tender affection, particularly for a female.
          Love is blind, and lovers cannot see. Shak.
2. A friend; one who regards with kindness.
          Your brother and his lover have embraced. Shak.
3. One who likes or is pleased with anything; as, a lover of books or of science; a lover of wine; a lover of religion.

Any thoughts on lover’s evolution? 

Share |

24 comments:

  1. They actually emphasised "female"....so women could "love" each other , but man could not "love" man? (and I do mean "love" not sexual intercourse), and their quotes on love are from Shakespeare...and not the Bible?:D XXX

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course lesbianism was completely awesome, but things were shaky when it came to guys loving one another--unless they were brothers--ha!

      The female bit made raise an eyebrow, then I saw they quoted Shakespeare and I gave them a break.

      Delete
  2. Your pianoman (aka lover) seems so 'tuned' in to what you need (or indeed desire) so I feel 'lover' also should have a musical evolution, another dimension not of flesh but f sound too, but SHARED sound, so it embodies the 2 lovers... actually all senses need addressed when it comes to loving & it sounds like that man in the glasses lying next to you is ready to take part in a lover's evolution of his own :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah, and we evolved together and then passed out in a lovingly embrace and kind of blind because it's hard to sleep with glasses.

      Delete
  3. I like Sunshineshelle's "shared sound". Very cool and very appropriate.
    Hugs
    SueAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My Shelle got rhythm, doesn't she?

      Delete
  4. YES I do!!! There wasn't any SEX 150 years ago!!! Love back then, it would seem, was Platonic :)

    Hugs,
    Jan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor bastards *sigh* no wonder so many people killed each other. Wait a minute, they still doing it, hm...

      Delete
  5. "Love" went from being an affair of the heart to an affair of the crotch. Hope that wasn't too crass lol.

    \IiiI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It reminds me of Valentine's Day.

      Delete
  6. I don't know as I have anything to add, but I LOVE the potential of this new series!

    ReplyDelete
  7. i really can't think of much to add...i think those who commented before me have said about all i had to say...on that...love. haha

    it's not too surprising though...SO MUCH has changed in 150 yrs.

    but i DO want to say...WHAT AN AWESOME GIFT!! i love books...OLD books...and a dictionary from 151 yrs ago...WoW!!! i can't wait to see changes in definitions of other words!! VERY cool!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have been reading and haven't been able to close my mouth. The definitions of things like slavery and adultery made me gasp a little.

      Delete
  8. Great idea Magaly! This will be a fun adventure :)

    I like Texas Zombie Goddess' response, for sure. Love isn't sex, or, should I say, people have sex without love being present. One isn't dependent on the other, so I think that the "evolved" version could use some improvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems the new definition needs some of the tenderness of the old, without the "especially female" focus.

      Delete
  9. Great idea; I look forward to reading the differences in definition! :)


    What I was going to say others have said before me, so I wont bother; I'll just go on my merry way and see what other posts people have posted that I haven't read yet. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my Tori, wait until I share the meaning of the word "disabled." If you think the new one is crippling, the old one might make you want to hit something; it sure did me.

      Delete
  10. Magaly, I just wanted to say, I love this post and I can't wait for more in this series! I love all the comments! Great everyone! Sorry, I don't have anything new to add!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh to never be a lover again.

    Not a huge fan of Shak, which is how I think we should all refer to him from now until forever.

    Good old Shak and his love affair with the run on sentence.
    A lover of the incomprehensible combination of words he made us all believe was brilliance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Good old Shak" ROTFLMAO!!!

      I thought I was the only one laughing at the lazy practice of abbreviating Shakespeare's name. Seriously, most already forgot the William bit, so why rob the man of the "espeare," too. I'm pretty sure espeare is a brilliant word.

      Delete
    2. Agreed.
      My immortal pen name show from now on be Espeare Nom DePlume.

      Delete
  12. Hmmm, I'm lost in thought on that one. Part of me can't really believe it. Have we really changed that much? I can't wait to see more. I'm going to be reminding you if you forget. :D

    ReplyDelete