Looking for the word

[Woods]

"Fearful", but nicely sounding - something you could say to your child but in a caring way and not to offend them?

I need an adjective, but a noun would be good to know too.

[Woods]

wait without doing the same mistake again

In a phrase similar to that one, I really need a synonym to "again" because it has been used too many times in the surrounding sentences.

None of the prases I found in Lexico and Webster feels good.

I need the same neautral effect of "again".

"once more" puts the emphasis on the repetitions
"anymore" would take away feeling of impending danger that the phrase has
"anew" focuses on the repeated action, while my phrase is rather a warning

Webster has:

"yet another time" - not too bad but it focuses too much the attention on the probability to do it and becomes annoying
"over" will not be understood in that phrase

I had a glimpse of hope when I saw "evermore" but that seems to mean "always" / "in the future".



someone is the same person

e.g. if he's the same person, meaning if he hasn't changed

Any ideas what to replace "the same person" with?

if he hasn't changed - I don't like it because it implies that the person was expected to change, which the original phrase does not
if he has remained the same - I don't like it because it makes it sound more likely for the person not to have changed, which the original phrase does not

The problematic word is "person" because it has already been used in the previous sentence. But it just does not sound good without it today. Any creative suggestions?

[linguoboy]

"Fearful", but nicely sounding - something you could say to your child but in a caring way and not to offend them?

"wary"

[linguoboy]

wait without doing the same mistake again

You don't "do" mistakes in English, you "make" them.

In a phrase similar to that one, I really need a synonym tofor "again" because it has been used too many times in the surrounding sentences.

"once more"

someone is the same person

e.g. if he's the same person, meaning if he hasn't changed

Any ideas what to replace "the same person" with?

if he hasn't changed - I don't like it because it implies that the person was expected to change, which the original phrase does not
if he has remained the same - I don't like it because it makes it sound more likely for the person not to have changed, which the original phrase does not

The problematic word is "person" because it has already been used in the previous sentence. But it just does not sound good without it today. Any creative suggestions?

Is "he's the same guy" too colloquial for the context?

[Linguaphile]

wait without doing the same mistake again

In a phrase similar to that one, I really need a synonym to for "again" because it has been used too many times in the surrounding sentences.

...without repeating the same mistake.
...without making the same mistake another time.

[Woods]

wait without doing the same mistake again

You don't "do" mistakes in English, you "make" them.

Really? Am I that bad :)

I've used that as a softener and to avoid repetition many times, didn't know it sounds non-English and bad.


Do you often read books written or translated by non-natives and what is the impression? If the content is good but there are lots of these little things, would it be too annoying?


Btw I remember you told me you were surprised I wasn't native about ten years ago. It seems I've been trying to break my English by using all kinds of different words to the ones people usually do (i.e. to be creative :: ) and I'm succeeding. I don't have that adverse reaction to what is not only unusual but totally out of line with the way people usually speak.

synonym tofor

For this one I actually checked a discussion in an online forum, and most people were saying that for is the right preposition, but some also were saying that it could be to as well. I got the impression they would have used for, but were saying they weren't linguists and they were thinking with to it sounded more scientific.

someone is the same person
(...)
The problematic word is "person" because it has already been used in the previous sentence.

Is "he's the same guy" too colloquial for the context?

I think it's pretty much what I was looking for! :) Thanks! So good to have someone else come up with something when my head goes dysfunctional.

"Fearful", but nicely sounding - something you could say to your child but in a caring way and not to offend them?

"wary"

I've got to see where that one was and study that word, because even after a quick browse through Oxford Dictionaries' article I am still not sure how it works.

wait without doing the same mistake again

In a phrase similar to that one, I really need a synonym to for "again" because it has been used too many times in the surrounding sentences.

...without repeating the same mistake.
...without making the same mistake another time.

Another time is a good suggestion - it draws less attention to the "mistake" than "once more", but still a little bit more than "again" which is the most unnoticeable. I will consider it - I will either use it or keep "again" in spite of the repetition - I will read a few more times and decide, thank you for the ideas!

Actually there's no "mistake" in the original sentence - I had to change it a little bit in order not to unveil the original phrase. So "repeating" the mistake will not work, but "another time" is better anyway.

[Linguaphile]

synonym tofor

For this one I actually checked a discussion in an online forum, and most people were saying that for is the right preposition, but some also were saying that it could be to as well. I got the impression they would have used for, but were saying they weren't linguists and they were thinking with to it sounded more scientific.

"For" really is the right preposition, though, just like you say "most people" were saying on that forum. Another common preposition that can be used is "of".
"Synonym to" in this context would be incorrect.
I don't know what forum you were looking on, but sometimes when someone says something "sounds more scientific", they are using English in a way that sounds pretentious to them but may be incorrect. In other words, they are deliberately speaking in a way that does not sound natural to them, because they think it makes them sound more educated, whether or not it is correct. Some suggestions of this nature are correct English, and some are not. In this case, I'd say it's not.
The other possibility is that they were saying that the word "synonym" is used differently in actual (literal) scientific contexts, or they'd heard it used in those contexts and that's where they got the idea. I googled and found some uses like "Pueraria stracheyi, a new synonym to Apios carnea" which is using the word "synonym" in its scientific sense as used in botany (definition 4 here), and quite a few examples of the phrase "synonym to" used in computing contexts in programming language. Although I don't know for sure, I have no reason to think the use of "to" is incorrect in those contexts (in fact, in the programming examples, I'm fairly certain it must be correct because there are lots of examples and if it were incorrect the programming would not work properly; but programming languages are not standard English).

Actually there's no "mistake" in the original sentence - I had to change it a little bit in order not to unveil the original phrase. So "repeating" the mistake will not work, but "another time" is better anyway.

I don't understand what you mean by "in order not to unveil the original phrase", but it helps if you can post your questions using the phrases you intend to use, because when you change them, the advice we give may change too. For example, Linguoboy and I both pointed out that you shouldn't say "doing the same mistake," but rather "making the same mistake". But now you say the word "mistake" is not in the sentence. In that case, most likely you should use the verb "do" (as you originally had it) and not the word "make" (as we suggested you use). It depends on what you are trying to say, and since you are not giving us the sentence, I'm just guessing here. But, for example, you should say "...without making the same mistake another time" if the sentence includes the word "mistake," but would say "...without doing it another time" (not *without making it another time) if there is no reference to the word "mistake".

Do you often read books written or translated by non-natives and what is the impression? If the content is good but there are lots of these little things, would it be too annoying?

Most books that I read are published by publishing houses (not self-published) and those books are always edited by someone who uses native-like English whether they were written by a native speaker or not*, so generally, there aren't "lots of these little things" [errors] in them. Even with many self-published books, the authors have hired an editor to do the same work before publishing.
Because of this, when I've read self-published books that hadn't been edited, they did seem much less professional. I've read a few like that because the content and author's perspective were important to me, so it was worthwhile to ignore the errors and have access to that content. (Keep in mind that I mostly read nonfiction, so I select books based on the topic and author's perspective, experience and knowledge base, rather than based on writing style.) But, as I said, books with a lot of grammatical errors do seem less professional. I don't think I would read a fiction book that was filled with grammatical errors because when I started reading it and saw how many errors it had, I would wonder why the author couldn't or didn't hire an editor; is the story not good enough for a publishing house to want to publish it? (Well, maybe the author is just not well-known enough for publishing houses to take an interest, it's okay to be self published, so let's move on to the other questions.) Does the author not expect to sell enough copies to justify the cost of hiring an editor? Could the author not even find a native-like English-speaking friend who was willing to read it and offer suggestions for free in exchange for getting to read their friend's book before it's published? Were there so many errors that no editor wanted to take on the task? Is the author so arrogant about his/her English that he/she ignored advice that was given? These things would make me also wonder about the quality of the book in terms of plot and interest, and I probably wouldn't continue reading.

*Even when the book is written by a native speaker, the editor almost certainly suggested some changes. Please keep this in mind: even native English speakers who are professional writers accept the advice of editors when publishing works in English. Because I know that you are interested in writing in English, I feel like this might be the most important advice I can ever give you. It doesn't mean you need to accept my advice or the advice of anyone else here on this forum, but at some point, you will need to accept or at least very seriously consider the advice given to you by someone.
Even I, when I wrote my master's thesis, had to submit my thesis to an advisor for editing, and had to make changes. Some of those changes were small errors and typos and some of those changes were to conform to the language usage standards of the institution that published it or simply the English usage preferences of the advisor. Those that were just his own personal preferences were optional, but I knew that if he thought it sounded better that way, others might too, and I generally took his advice.
The reason I wrote "even I" when mentioning my own writing above is twofold: (1) I'm a native English speaker with strong university-level English skills and (2) my thesis was published in a very limited fashion; there are only five copies that I'm aware of, so it was not published for the "general public" and there is no expectation of making any money from it. Maybe you would think that a native English speaker with a university graduate degree would not need to do this or that a little-read book with only five published copies (two of which I own myself) can contain some grammatical errors without anyone caring about them. But even in that situation, it was worthwhile (and required by my institution) to involve an editor. This is why I'd expect the same quality of any published work that I'm reading. It's a standard practice and not unreasonable to expect.
I'm sure there are professional writers whose work is so good that an editor actually isn't required or the editor has no or very few suggestions to make. Some well-known prolific writers probably have better English usage and writing style than any editors do. But, I am not in that category and neither are you.

[linguoboy]

wait without doing the same mistake again

You don't "do" mistakes in English, you "make" them.

Really? Am I that bad

IME the usage of do vs make is one of the hardest for L2 speakers to master. You really just have to memorise the collocations.

Do you often read books written or translated by non-natives and what is the impression? If the content is good but there are lots of these little things, would it be too annoying?

I can't easily generalise. There's just too much of a range. There are particular usages (erroneous and otherwise) that I associate with speakers of certain L1s, but not all L2 speakers of that background have them. Moreover, depending on the subject, tone, narrative voice, etc. there are certain deviations from the standard which would annoy me and others which I would find intriguing or charming. Being able to produce the right kind of mistakes when trying to establish a character's background in a work of fictiong, for instance, is an indication of very good writing.

Btw I remember you told me you were surprised I wasn't native about ten years ago. It seems I've been trying to break my English by using all kinds of different words to the ones people usually do (i.e. to be creative :: ) and I'm succeeding. I don't have that adverse reaction to what is not only unusual but totally out of line with the way people usually speak.

Trying too hard to sound different to others is kind of irritating, actually. Every choice has a stylistic effect and too many bold choices produce a discordant effect.

synonym tofor

For this one I actually checked a discussion in an online forum, and most people were saying that for is the right preposition, but some also were saying that it could be to as well. I got the impression they would have used for, but were saying they weren't linguists and they were thinking with to it sounded more scientific.

I agree with Linguaphile that "more scientific" is sort of code here for "unnatural". Not only does scientific writing have a lot of usages which aren't found in ordinary colloquial language but also that many scientific works are written by L2 speakers and contain a lot of usages that sound off to native speakers but not so bad that editors will correct them. (Keep in mind that the kind of editing that, say, a research monograph on set theory undergoes is quite different from the type of editing applied to a children's book or a general-audience magazine article. Editors specialise and science editors are not looking for and rooting out the same kind of errors that other editors would.)

[Woods]

I don't understand what you mean by "in order not to unveil the original phrase", but it helps if you can post your questions using the phrases you intend to use, because when you change them, the advice we give may change too.

Yes, that is unfortunately true, but I do not always think it's appropriate to post the texts I'm working with. In this example, I wouldn't say so. It shouldn't be posted on the Internet, it's someone's project and I'm not supposed to reveal it (maybe that's a better word than "unveil"?)

Of course I often type the original phrases but that's more when I need to ask something relating to my personal speech, an example from a daily situation or something that I think it's fine to reveal.

For example, Linguoboy and I both pointed out that you shouldn't say "doing the same mistake," but rather "making the same mistake". But now you say the word "mistake" is not in the sentence.

Well, that was actually a good hit because if I keep saying "to do a mistake" while to both of you it's strikingly incorrect, then it is good we fixed that.

I actually mentioned this is not the original phrase by saying "in a phrase similar to this."

In that case, most likely you should use the verb "do" (as you originally had it) and not the word "make" (as we suggested you use).

Do not worry, the original phrase does not contain either make or do, it was all about finding an alternative word to "again" and I made my best to write a similar phrase, which worked because you gave me a good suggestion.

Most books that I read are published by publishing houses (not self-published) and those books are always edited by someone who uses native-like English whether they were written by a native speaker or not

That is problematic for two reasons. First, as far as I'm aware, the publisher covers initial costs such as proofreading and printing, but then they do close to nothing to popularise the book and keep about 90% of the profit. That definitely isn't something I would like to consent to if I were an author. But I would definitely want to hire a proofreader before publishing.

The second reason is that the proofreader might not understand the author. In other words, they will certainly have more native-like language skills, but not necessarily that much knowledge of the subject, and they may cripple the text. So it needs to be rather a collaboration with the editor involving two-way communication than submitting it to someone and then getting it back.

Please keep this in mind: even native English speakers who are professional writers accept the advice of editors when publishing works in English. Because I know that you are interested in writing in English, I feel like this might be the most important advice I can ever give you.

Totally agreed. And I've always thought the same way and planned to hire an editor when one day I have something to publish. Remains to be seen how the logistics of this will be organised.

is the story not good enough for a publishing house to want to publish it? (Well, maybe the author is just not well-known enough for publishing houses to take an interest

You're making it sound like having your work go through a publisher is some kind of achievement. I see this could be the case as publishers are picky, but if what I've heard is right, I don't see any benefits to it besides saving a little bit of initial costs.

Some well-known prolific writers probably have better English usage and writing style than any editors do. But, I am not in that category and neither are you.

I don't know if I give the impression that I think high of my English skills - if I come here and ask even the most basic questions, obviously I don't think I am in that category.

Plus I've spent two months total in the English-speaking world, so access to natives has always been limited.

Trying too hard to sound different to others is kind of irritating, actually. Every choice has a stylistic effect and too many bold choices produce a discordant effect.

I'm not trying hard to sound different, just to be creative, or to find alternative ways of saying something so that I can avoid repetition.

You see, sometimes it's as easy as saying "the same guy" instead of "the same person" and it doesn't even come to mind!

Other times it's like "I just made a mistake. I won't do it again." "You won't do what?" "I won't do the mistake." Or I hear it from someone who is not native but whose English is very good and I accept it as an option.

For example, these days I've noticed myself answering the following way to wishes like "have a nice day" and such: "Same to you!" It's Finnish-influenced (sinulle samoin) - does it sound too off?

I think when I start learning a language, I always stick to the most common ways of saying things. When I'm advanced, I do exactly the opposite. I guess you need to be very close to (a well-educated) native to find the right balance.

[Linguaphile]

It shouldn't be posted on the Internet, it's someone's project and I'm not supposed to reveal it (maybe that's a better word than "unveil"?)

Yes, I think if you had said "reveal" I would have better-understood your reasoning. "Unveil" sounds more like you plan to reveal it at some time in the future and are waiting for the right moment. Also, I didn't realize you are writing some of this for other people's projects. I was under the impression that it was your own writing and that some of it was for a book (of yours), and that's why I wrote as much as I did about editors. (I suppose your word "unveil" helped give that impression, as the "unveiling" of your sentence could be the publication of a book.) Are you doing translation work?

I made did my best to write a similar phrase, which worked because you gave me a good suggestion.

Here's another good example of needing to just memorize when to use "do" and when to use "make". You "make" mistakes, but you "do" your best.

The second reason is that the proofreader might not understand the author. In other words, they will certainly have more native-like language skills, but not necessarily that much knowledge of the subject, and they may cripple the text. So it needs to be rather a collaboration with the editor involving two-way communication than submitting it to someone and then getting it back.

Well, as was mentioned earlier, editors do specialize so they have some familiarity with the content. There is also two-way communication. Usually you submit the work and they make suggestions which they send back to you, and then you can discuss them. Or at least this is how it has worked with the thesis I wrote and a few works that I've edited. We don't discuss every suggestion, but any that the author has questions about. It's up to the author to make changes, ignore suggestions or ask for clarification before deciding which to do. After that discussion and after changes have been made, it should be sent back to the editor for another read to make sure that it still sounds good after changes have been made.
Sometimes when I've read published works by non-native speakers I can even tell that they did the first part but did not have it read by an editor again after the changes were made. I can see that there were some corrections made but some of them are overgeneralized or awkwardly corrected in a way in a way that gives the impression that the writer misunderstood the editor's suggestion. (Of course, if it is done well, in a final work I shouldn't be able to see that any corrections had been made at all.) It doesn't bother me too much when I'm reading, but if there are a lot of errors remaining in a published work it bothers me less with nonfiction than it does with fiction. (Even so, if there are a lot of similar books on a topic, then I'm going to read the one that is written in more standard language.)

Another comment that it just occurred to me to make: when I'm reading, I'm much more tolerant of errors in my native language than I am with reading material that has errors in a language I'm learning. Basically if I start reading something in any of my L2's and see that it is poorly edited, I will stop reading it immediately. This is because I don't want an author's errors to influence my own language use. With my native language I know that isn't going to be a problem, but with a second language there is the risk of me "learning" something incorrect from what I read.

For example, these days I've noticed myself answering the following way to wishes like "have a nice day" and such: "Same to you!" It's Finnish-influenced (sinulle samoin) - does it sound too off?

Actually it's okay in English too. It should be "the same to you," but in informal speech (which this would be), often the word "the" is dropped. Personally I usually say "you too," but I would think absolutely nothing of it if someone said "same to you" to me. I'm sure people have.

[linguoboy]

Trying too hard to sound different to others is kind of irritating, actually. Every choice has a stylistic effect and too many bold choices produce a discordant effect.

I'm not trying hard to sound different, just to be creative, or to find alternative ways of saying something so that I can avoid repetition.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing but I feel like beginning writers often go to far. Repetition is simply another tool in your stylistic toolbox and sometimes it's exactly what's needed.

For example, these days I've noticed myself answering the following way to wishes like "have a nice day" and such: "Same to you!" It's Finnish-influenced (sinulle samoin) - does it sound too off?

So I have a very different reaction to "Same to you!" than Linguaphile. I'm used to hearing it as a rejoinder to insults, e.g. "Go fuck yourself!" "Same to you, buddy!" So I prickle when I hear it even in response to good wishes and I never use it myself. Instead, if I don't repeat the expression, I'll say something like "I hope you do, too!"

[Linguaphile]

So I have a very different reaction to "Same to you!" than Linguaphile. I'm used to hearing it as a rejoinder to insults, e.g. "Go fuck yourself!" "Same to you, buddy!" So I prickle when I hear it even in response to good wishes and I never use it myself. Instead, if I don't repeat the expression, I'll say something like "I hope you do, too!"

Haha, maybe it's because I don't shout insults like that so I never get "same to you" back at me in a negative context. It's not like I haven't heard others use it that way with other people, but it really wouldn't occur to me to associate "same to you" with that context to such an extent that I would think of it even when it was used as a response to good wishes. So likewise, it wouldn't occur to me to avoid saying to for that reason, either. Maybe it's a regional difference. It sounds perfectly fine to me.

[Woods]

reveal / unveil

I see the difference, I totally meant reveal, but for some reason I came up with unveil. Happens with other words too - sometimes not even close in meaning but in sound for example - I guess when you haven't grown up with the language your mind is more likely to confuse things

I made/did my best

I think this one comes from German. But I have no idea how it entered my sentence because when I look at it, "I made my best" sounds as wrong to me as it does to you

Thanks for pointing out stuff like that - this one I would have corrected if I reread my text, but with "did a mistake" I had no idea it wasn't correct.

Are you doing translation work?

Not translating too much but it happens sometimes - usually when a friends asks me cause translation agencies and such who have contacted me never made a good offer.

Well, as was mentioned earlier, editors do specialize so they have some familiarity with the content. There is also two-way communication. Usually you submit the work and they make suggestions which they send back to you, and then you can discuss them. (...) It's up to the author to make changes, ignore suggestions or ask for clarification before deciding which to do. After that discussion and after changes have been made, it should be sent back to the editor for another read

What about the moment of the transmission - would you be comfortable sending your work to someone before publication?

I guess with a master's thesis it could work if it's particular to your project and obvious it's yours, but otherwise I wouldn't be comfortable sending something I intend to publish to someone else's computer.

If I have the person nearby it's another thing.

Another comment that it just occurred to me to make: when I'm reading, I'm much more tolerant of errors in my native language than I am with reading material that has errors in a language I'm learning.

Same here, for the same reasons.

Trying too hard to sound different to others is kind of irritating, actually. Every choice has a stylistic effect and too many bold choices produce a discordant effect.

I'm not trying hard to sound different, just to be creative, or to find alternative ways of saying something so that I can avoid repetition.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing but I feel like beginning writers often go to far. Repetition is simply another tool in your stylistic toolbox and sometimes it's exactly what's needed.

Precisely, but sometimes you can feel it's too much and it's annoying you, but your language skills are maybe not enough to find the right word without being creative in the wrong way.

So I have a very different reaction to "Same to you!" than Linguaphile. I'm used to hearing it as a rejoinder to insults, e.g. "Go fuck yourself!" "Same to you, buddy!" So I prickle when I hear it even in response to good wishes and I never use it myself. Instead, if I don't repeat the expression, I'll say something like "I hope you do, too!"

I'm pretty sure I heard it from some random Finnish person a while ago and it stuck with me. The good thing with it is that you don't have to think too much - like with "you too" for example, you could reply to "have a nice day", but if someone says "I wish you a nice evening", then "you too" doesn't logically fit. Nonetheless, I used to reply that way without caring too much if it makes logical sense or not. I like the German/French ones gleichfalls / également because they work in every possible sentence and context (well, maybe également is a bit more formal, I don't know about gleichfalls).

[Linguaphile]

What about the moment of the transmission - would you be comfortable sending your work to someone before publication?

I wouldn't be comfortable sending something I intend to publish to someone else's computer.

No, I wouldn't just send it to a random person who claimed to be able to edit it for me, if that's what you mean.
I think that's one of the benefits of using a publisher. They can help with that and it's routine to them. They know how to do it will and they also have lawyers who are experts in such things. When I did editing and reviewing work for a major publisher, I had to sign an agreement about not sharing or re-using or publishing the material. In addition to that, one also sent the work copy-protected so that it could not be saved as a copy or printed. I'm sure they also had other documentation of the author's and publisher's ownership of the works and of the fact that I had agreed to edit them (and that they were paying me for that), which they could have used if I had tried to claim it was my own work. So there were several safeguards involved for the owners of the work.
The other option is to send it to someone you really truly trust, which I've also done.

[Woods]

What about the moment of the transmission - would you be comfortable sending your work to someone before publication?

I wouldn't be comfortable sending something I intend to publish to someone else's computer.

No, I wouldn't just send it to a random person who claimed to be able to edit it for me (...) When I did editing and reviewing work for a major publisher, I had to sign an agreement about not sharing or re-using or publishing the material. In addition to that, one also sent the work copy-protected so that it could not be saved as a copy or printed. I'm sure they also had other documentation of the author's and publisher's ownership of the works and of the fact that I had agreed to edit them (and that they were paying me for that), which they could have used if I had tried to claim it was my own work. So there were several safeguards involved for the owners of the work.

There's the UK copyright service (https://copyrightservice.co.uk/) for English-language works - I'm not sure how reliable it is, but here in Finland they don't have the option to deposit a work before it's published.

[Woods]

What are the possible words for a boyfriend / a partner?

boyfriend - does that imply something temporary or childish?

Is there a word that presupposes the commitment, willingness to stay with that person, but does not imply marriage (husband) or that the relationship is new and untested (fiancé)?

I don't like "partner" cause it can be a million other things and there's something sterile about it.

I looked at the words in Lexico but most of them focus on the feelings (dearest, darling, sweetheart).

Merriam has a more extensive list but I still don't find a good one.

Nothing about a committed relationship, as if all words about that topic were made back when everyone used to get married and that summed it all up, while now it's all about the experience and moving on to the next one.

[linguoboy]

When I was younger the term “significant other” (often abbreviated to “SO”) was common, particularly in queer circles, but it seems to have fallen out of favour with widespread acceptance and recognition of same-sex relationships.

“Spouse” is possible, though it does imply marriage.

“Boyfriend” can have a temporary/childish ring if used in adolescent contexts. But I’ve had men in their sixties introduced to me as “boyfriends” who have been together for decades. So your mileage may vary.

[Woods]

Yes, but precisely this queer aspect gets in the way. I need something for a traditional relationship, implying feelings but also commitment. Significant other is somewhat unclear, sounds like partner plus the queer connotation.

I think "boyfriend" is what I'm going with so far, but there could (and IMO should) be something better. What if we leave the context of relationships - something that implies feelings and commitment which would be understood as a relationship because of context?

But I’ve had men in their sixties introduced to me as “boyfriends” who have been together for decades.

Precisely - sounds a little bit unfit to me.

[linguoboy]

Yes, but precisely this queer aspect gets in the way. I need something for a traditional relationship, implying feelings but also commitment. Significant other is somewhat unclear, sounds like partner plus the queer connotation.

It's perfectly clear what that term means in English, even if it sounds a bit vague to a non-native speaker. Unlike "partner", it can't be used for a commercial alliance, nor does it cover other family relationship or platonic friendships. (I've heard the term "heterosexual life partner" for a close but non-sexual and non-romantic relationship between two men. You couldn't use *"heterosexual significant other" with the same meaning.)

But I’ve had men in their sixties introduced to me as “boyfriends” who have been together for decades.

Precisely - sounds a little bit unfit to me.

I felt the same way when I was dating a man in his 50s so I called him my "gentleman friend" instead. This is a somewhat old-fashioned term for an unmarried male partner. Again, it may sound vague, but it's unambiguous in context.

[Woods]

But I’ve had men in their sixties introduced to me as “boyfriends” who have been together for decades.

Precisely - sounds a little bit unfit to me.

I felt the same way when I was dating a man in his 50s so I called him my "gentleman friend" instead. This is a somewhat old-fashioned term for an unmarried male partner. Again, it may sound vague, but it's unambiguous in context.

Okay, so it seems the closest to a traditional romantic heterosexual long-term relationship not involving marriage which a woman can call her man is a boyfriend.

This "gentleman friend" also sounds to me lacking something, but in a different way - maybe I'm unfamiliar with where it comes from so I won't comment it because I don't want to say the wrong thing.

I would really like to have something sounding like a happy/successful marriage, but without the signatures.