It's called a wedding ring, but surely it should be called a marriage ring
It's called a wedding ring, but surely it should be called a marriage ring
Like engagement rings denote the engagement... Maybe it's just English being its usual mess
A wearer of an engagement ring receives it when they become engaged, and a wearer of a wedding ring receives it when they wed. Seems pretty consistent to me.
Yeah, you get it at the event.
OP is acting like a birthday gift is only a birthday gift on someone's birthday...
Your logic is sound, but backwards.
Marriage is more analogous to a birthday. (A personal change in status)
Wedding is more analogous to a birthday party (i.e. the event celebrating the change in status).
As you pointed out in your logic, the birthday gift isn't really about the birthday party, just like the ring doesn't commemorate the wedding celebration, it commemorates your new marital status.
Unless of course you are the kind of person that is so focused on the wedding celebration that you forget the reason why you are celebrating to begin with (spoiler: you are making a commitment and entering a new life stage).
I think OP is on to something.
"Enemy spotted. Engaging." Puts on fancy diamond ring
Your logic makes sense. To OP's point, though, you wear an engagement ring to show that you are engaged; a wedding ring to display you are married/wed. The argument for it being called when you receive it is weakened by the fact that most people remove their rings when an engagement is broken, or they get divorced. Or, they move the ring to a different finger, at which point it's no longer an engagement or wedding ring, right? It's just a ring.
If the rings were named after the event of reception, they'd still be called wedding and engagement rings even after a broken relationship. They're "was" rings; ex-wedding-rings. No longer engagement rings.
So the more I think about it, the more I'm with OP - the rings represent a state, and so wedding rings should be called "marriage" rings to represent the state of being engaged/married, rather than the singular event of the giving.
I get that, but also, it's always seemed like the purpose of the ring is to signify the state of being, so engagement ring to show the state of being engaged, wedding ring shows the state of being married, or wed, I guess it works both ways
Not a strongly held view by any means 😆
In german it is "Ehe-Ring" which literally translates to marriage ring
French as well - le bague de mariage
You receive an engagement ring at your engagement and your wedding ring at your wedding. How is this difficult?
Reminds me of an old Yakov Smirnoff routine. Espresso powder makes espresso, and milk powder makes milk. So what does baby powder make?
Terrible coffee
Some people never even get "wedding rings" and just wear the fancy looking engagement rings forever.
That being said, wedding rings make use of the wed/wedded connotations. :shrug:
While I don't see the necessity in wearing a ring in the first place - yet I am a sucker for rings - what always gets me is having a fancy overpriced engagement ring that you're supposed to wear for a short period of time and then a simple wedding ring that you're supposed to wear forever.
You can blame the debeers company for the engagement ring. Just like you can blame Kellogg's for the slogan "breakfast is the most important meal of the day".
Wait, do you know women that stop wearing their engagement ring after they're married? Every married woman I've met (that doesn't have a hands based labor job) wears the engagement and wedding ring. All the women in my family have them soldered together some time after, so they don't independently spin on the finger.
-ing-a-ring along, old sire