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.
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
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.
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.
I dunno, doesn’t seem like toe rings and cock follow the same naming convention.
Finger rings don’t, either. Not when they’re called that.
Oh yeah, and pinky rings!
At least onion rings are honest.
You get three rings at the shocking. The one for the pinky is called the “stinker ring”
“Enemy spotted. Engaging.” Puts on fancy diamond ring
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 😆
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.