Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:marry. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:marry, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:marry in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:marry you have here. The definition of the word Talk:marry will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:marry, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence. Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
(transitive, in passive) To be joinedto (someone) as spouse according to law or custom.
She was not happily married.
His daughter was married some five years ago to a tailor's apprentice.
In any normal interpretation, "married" in "She was not happily married" is surely an adjective. I don't fully understand the intention of the second usex, but it seems that "married" there is either an adjective or the passive form of another sense, "To unite in wedlock or matrimony". Anyone see any distinct sense salvageable here? Mihia (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I stumbled across this just the other day and thought it was odd, but there might be a valid distinction here. It is worth noting that the OED has separate senses for all the ones we have (plus a few extra ones), with the same distinction in time of origin (14th vs. 15th century). I agree that the first usex represents an adjectival use, but it could theoretically be a verb (in which case, I would understand it to refer to an event rather than a state). I think "To unite in wedlock or matrimony" is a different sense. At least, it "feels" different to me. I think you could say "I was married last year" even if you were from a culture where there was no minister/judge presiding over the wedding. SGconlaw's suggestion seems the most likely to me, but I'm not sure it's exactly the same sense. If it were, I would expect "I was married by a doctor" rather than "I was married to a doctor." What would seem most likely to me is that the passive sense in question is derived from the "unite in wedlock or matrimony" sense ("I was married to a doctor by our parish priest"), and that the passive sense eventually took on a life of its own, with no connection to any minister. The only problem with this is that the passive sense seems to date back two centuries earlier than the "unite in wedlock" sense, according to the OED.
@Mihia Out of curiosity, what sort of cites do you think would demonstrate the distinctness of the sense? It's easily citable, but do you think we need a use of the word where there is clearly no minister? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
First, on the issue of the RFV'd sense being a passive form of sense 3, "(transitive) To take as husband or wife", I'm not sure about that. E.g. if Jack and Jenny became husband and wife last year, and Jenny says "I was married last year", could this have the sense of "married by Jack"? It doesn't seem obvious to me. To me, the normal implication of examples such as "I was married last year" interpreted as passive verbal would be that "someone married me" in the sense of "united me (with someone) in wedlock". However, if a passive verbal interpretation definitely can exist without any "active" implication, then presumably that would establish a separate passive-only sense. So, to answer your question, I think that some kind of usage example that clearly precluded adjectival interpretation as well as any kind of "someone married me" implication would be very helpful, if such a thing exists. Mihia (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
What about sense 6, “to unite in wedlock”? In the passive voice, married then means, “united in wedlock”. Compare also such dictions as seen in “The pair were married in February 2015”. --Lambiam21:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I got an edit confict when posting; as my posting was in direct reaction to an earlier “Seems redundant to sense 3” and I was any moment expected to join a zoom call, I did not examine the conflicting posting. As to the absence of an active sense, it is fairly common that the passive voice is used without any connotation of an implied actor: “Passengers from Brisbane are reunited with loved ones as Western Australia’s hard border comes down”; “There a bond was formed between the two men”; “this station was established before the railroad went through there”. --Lambiam13:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I see, thanks, well, in any case it seems clear that the validity of the RFV'd sense depends at least on its existing without any implication of a corresponding active idea (otherwise it would simply be the passive form of some other listed sense). So if we take an example such as "I was married last year", we're looking for an interpretation that does not entail any "someone/something married me"-type implication (e.g. "The vicar married me last year"), and of course also is not adjectival. I'm beginning to believe that such an interpretation may indeed exist, as Andrew Sheedy mentioned, with in fact similar meaning to "I got married last year". It would be nice, as I mentioned above, if we could find a usage example where only this interpretation, and no other, was feasible. Mihia (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
While I am at it, I have deleted the "She was not happily married" example. It seems adjectival in any normal interpretation, and there has not been support expressed for keeping it. Mihia (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
