Specific word for "they set aside differences"
February 17, 2013 4:54 PM Subscribe
Not harmonize... not concur... not compromised...
is there a specific word for when two living things set aside differences?
I need a specific word... not a list of synonyms...
I'm looking for something that lacks connotation within the general public.
Compromise.
posted by DoubleLune at 5:06 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by DoubleLune at 5:06 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Coexist
posted by JujuB at 5:09 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by JujuB at 5:09 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Cooperate
posted by JujuB at 5:11 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by JujuB at 5:11 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Acquiesce works, thank you heliostatic. Out of curiosity, how did you find or where did you learn this word?
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 5:14 PM on February 17, 2013
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 5:14 PM on February 17, 2013
Response by poster: I could have been more specific and asked for something without inflectional morphemes... apologies!
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 5:18 PM on February 17, 2013
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 5:18 PM on February 17, 2013
I think of burying the hatchet. To me acquiesce means "to give in"
posted by jessamyn at 5:20 PM on February 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by jessamyn at 5:20 PM on February 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: That's great, jessamyn! It's verbal usage literally implies that feeling. If I'm wrong, anyone, please correct me!
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 5:24 PM on February 17, 2013
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 5:24 PM on February 17, 2013
The concept of both sides of an argument giving up their positions on equal terms and harmoniously coming together is a bit hard to express.
"Acquiesce" might work, but it has some implication of one side "giving in" to the other.
"Capitulate" comes close, but again there's an implication that somebody lost something in the exchange.
"Cooperate" actually seems better than those two, as it has no implication of how the alliance was arranged. Compare saying, "Republicans cooperated on the Republican-proposed legislation" to "Democrats acquiesced on the Republican-proposed legislation."
posted by deathpanels at 5:25 PM on February 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Acquiesce" might work, but it has some implication of one side "giving in" to the other.
"Capitulate" comes close, but again there's an implication that somebody lost something in the exchange.
"Cooperate" actually seems better than those two, as it has no implication of how the alliance was arranged. Compare saying, "Republicans cooperated on the Republican-proposed legislation" to "Democrats acquiesced on the Republican-proposed legislation."
posted by deathpanels at 5:25 PM on February 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
What about tolerate or abide?
posted by ActingTheGoat at 5:32 PM on February 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by ActingTheGoat at 5:32 PM on February 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Seems that your looking for something a bit like detente?
posted by mightshould at 5:32 PM on February 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by mightshould at 5:32 PM on February 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Rapprochement?
"Acquiesce" (which you marked as best answer) is wrong. Acquiesce means one side completely goes along with the other side, not that they're both setting aside their differences.
posted by John Cohen at 5:51 PM on February 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
"Acquiesce" (which you marked as best answer) is wrong. Acquiesce means one side completely goes along with the other side, not that they're both setting aside their differences.
posted by John Cohen at 5:51 PM on February 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
John Cohen is correct. Acquiesce means one side gives in.
Simple, but I think you're looking for compromise. Rapprochement is great, but it's a noun.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:53 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Simple, but I think you're looking for compromise. Rapprochement is great, but it's a noun.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:53 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: In response to deathpanels, quote
"..."Acquiesce" might work, but it has some implication of one side "giving in" to the other."
I see what you mean. I was looking for a one word caption for a photo. Where is this implication derived? It's common day usage?
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/859551_421524394598977_80148847_o.jpg
And in response to John Cohen
I was going off of google's search ("define acquiesce") which returns this definition:
"Verb
Accept something reluctantly but without protest."
I figured that's where most people would go when looking for a definition, but I'm probably mistaken.
What is the best source for definitions of words? IS there a best source?
would rapprochement work for this photo? And I guess I was looking for a word that also drew curiosity/sounded neat (I like providing the opportunity to learn:P)
My question next week will be much more thought out... apologies again everyone, but thank you so much! I'm learning a lot!
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 5:56 PM on February 17, 2013
"..."Acquiesce" might work, but it has some implication of one side "giving in" to the other."
I see what you mean. I was looking for a one word caption for a photo. Where is this implication derived? It's common day usage?
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/859551_421524394598977_80148847_o.jpg
And in response to John Cohen
I was going off of google's search ("define acquiesce") which returns this definition:
"Verb
Accept something reluctantly but without protest."
I figured that's where most people would go when looking for a definition, but I'm probably mistaken.
What is the best source for definitions of words? IS there a best source?
would rapprochement work for this photo? And I guess I was looking for a word that also drew curiosity/sounded neat (I like providing the opportunity to learn:P)
My question next week will be much more thought out... apologies again everyone, but thank you so much! I'm learning a lot!
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 5:56 PM on February 17, 2013
"Accept something reluctantly but without protest."
Exactly: one side completely gives in to the other. So they don't "agree to disagree" (which could be the phrase you're looking for). One person agrees to let the other side win.
posted by John Cohen at 6:00 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Exactly: one side completely gives in to the other. So they don't "agree to disagree" (which could be the phrase you're looking for). One person agrees to let the other side win.
posted by John Cohen at 6:00 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Accept something reluctantly but without protest.
Well... how does this imply that only one party is acquiescing?
As a one word caption for the photo, (just a cat and pooch laying side-by-side) could it imply that both pets acquiesced?
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 6:07 PM on February 17, 2013
Well... how does this imply that only one party is acquiescing?
As a one word caption for the photo, (just a cat and pooch laying side-by-side) could it imply that both pets acquiesced?
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 6:07 PM on February 17, 2013
If you're looking for a word to fit that photograph with the meaning you want, maybe something simple like "truce" would work? It doesn't mean that one side gives in to another, or that they come to a final agreement, just that they stop fighting for a time.
posted by Jehan at 6:08 PM on February 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Jehan at 6:08 PM on February 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: Truce would be nice as well. In a response I posted earlier, I had stated that I was looking for something that drew curiosity to the word itself. Apologies, I should have spent more time thinking about my question. And should have included more information. Thanks, though :) Truce is a lovely word, I like how short it is!
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 6:12 PM on February 17, 2013
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 6:12 PM on February 17, 2013
mightshould's suggestion of détente is exactly what I would title that photo. A temporary cessation in hostilities, mutual but unlikely to be permanent.
posted by MsMolly at 6:15 PM on February 17, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by MsMolly at 6:15 PM on February 17, 2013 [11 favorites]
Settled.
posted by Cocodrillo at 6:27 PM on February 17, 2013
posted by Cocodrillo at 6:27 PM on February 17, 2013
Well... how does this imply that only one party is acquiescing?
Acquiescence is one-sided. It doesn't mean agreeing to disagree; it means one person agreeing to agree with the other.
I think you have the answer in this thread. It's one of the following: agree to disagree, bury the hatchet, truce, rapprochement, or detente. (However, if you want something with no "connotations," you might not want rapprochement or detente, since they both have foreign-policy connotations.)
posted by John Cohen at 6:36 PM on February 17, 2013
Acquiescence is one-sided. It doesn't mean agreeing to disagree; it means one person agreeing to agree with the other.
I think you have the answer in this thread. It's one of the following: agree to disagree, bury the hatchet, truce, rapprochement, or detente. (However, if you want something with no "connotations," you might not want rapprochement or detente, since they both have foreign-policy connotations.)
posted by John Cohen at 6:36 PM on February 17, 2013
Acquiesce definitely does not work for that photo (which is adorable by the way).
It looks like you're going more for something like "live to die another day". I nth détante.
posted by losvedir at 7:24 PM on February 17, 2013
It looks like you're going more for something like "live to die another day". I nth détante.
posted by losvedir at 7:24 PM on February 17, 2013
Detente seems right. There's also the phrase letting bygones be bygones.
posted by southern_sky at 8:03 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by southern_sky at 8:03 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Acquiesce is not an uncommon word at all, though it is one you'd encounter in more generally literate contexts. I'd agree that detente fits the picture better, as do wordier expressions like cease-fire, alliance of rivals, armistice, pact of nonaggression, etc.
posted by Miko at 8:09 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 8:09 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
I vote for truce, or detente, defined by Merriam-Webster as "the relaxation of strained relations or tensions (as between nations.)"
posted by Ursula Hitler at 8:46 PM on February 17, 2013
posted by Ursula Hitler at 8:46 PM on February 17, 2013
I see what you mean. I was looking for a one word caption for a photo. Where is this implication derived? It's common day usage?Well, that all depends on your stance on prescriptive versus descriptive. Etymologically, acquiesce means "to become quiet". Websters says it is "to submit passively". I don't have access to the OED but you can go find one in your local library if you want the best definition.
As far as everyday use, yes, I'd say "acquiesce" falls far enough within the realm of common words that you're not being archaic or pretentious by employing it. It's not a super slangy way of saying what you're talking about, but people should get it.
Now as for the descriptive angle, I think this sounds right:
Ex: "John and Kathy had an argument. Finally, John acquiesced."
But it wouldn't make sense to say they both acquiesced, in my opinion. This sounds wrong to me:
"John and Kathy had an argument. Finally, they acquiesced."
If you're using the dictionary definition of "acquiesce" then yes, it is possible for both parties to passively submit to the other. But doesn't that formulation make you suspicious that somebody won the argument, and saying "they acquiesced" is just a way of avoiding talking about it? So it seems more natural to say one person acquiesced to the wishes of the other, because the argument had to be resolved, right?
I think the problem with this formulation is that casting anything into a subject-object relation and then sticking "acquiesce" between them makes it sound like one of them did the acquiescing to the other, but "they acquiesced" sounds implausible. Chalk it up to the limitations of English, I suppose (and Western languages generally).
posted by deathpanels at 8:51 PM on February 17, 2013
Well... how does this imply that only one party is acquiescing?
Beyond that dictionary definition, you could have a squizz at a thesaurus, where you'd see terms like 'cave in', 'give up', 'roll over and play dead' given as synonyms.
posted by pompomtom at 8:58 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Beyond that dictionary definition, you could have a squizz at a thesaurus, where you'd see terms like 'cave in', 'give up', 'roll over and play dead' given as synonyms.
posted by pompomtom at 8:58 PM on February 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Best answer: One could choose to look at the photo as both parties aquiescing to the human who placed them in the situation. A three-way argument in which two parties gave in.
posted by Brody's chum at 9:06 PM on February 17, 2013
posted by Brody's chum at 9:06 PM on February 17, 2013
Response by poster: BINGO! (Thank you Brody, this just happens to be the case. Well, it's how I see it, haha)
I had to show them equal love very carefully when they were both within my presence. Took them quite awhile to warm up to one another. Now to just get the elder cat "in the picture"... hah
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 3:07 AM on February 18, 2013
I had to show them equal love very carefully when they were both within my presence. Took them quite awhile to warm up to one another. Now to just get the elder cat "in the picture"... hah
posted by JamesBlakeAV at 3:07 AM on February 18, 2013
At school, when two people were having an argument that was going nowhere, they would eventually say "Pax" (or start belting each other), obviously Latin for Peace i.e. Agreeing to Disagree. The photo's sort of a "Pax animalia domestica" But don't quote me on that..
The cat and dog remind me of the "yin and yang" symbol, which (according to Wikipedia) "is used to describe how seemingly opposite or contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world"
posted by guy72277 at 3:10 AM on February 18, 2013
The cat and dog remind me of the "yin and yang" symbol, which (according to Wikipedia) "is used to describe how seemingly opposite or contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world"
posted by guy72277 at 3:10 AM on February 18, 2013
« Older Hiking and trip advice for Argentina | When was the printer Oliveau & Fils graveur in... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by pompomtom at 4:56 PM on February 17, 2013 [2 favorites]