DEAR MISS MANNERS: I feel somewhat awkward in questioning a member of the Etiquette Mavens' High Council, but, as I am confident that you, of all people, will be most understanding, I must inquire about your use of a period in the word "Ms."

I seem to recall that when the word was coined, it was touted as not being an abbreviation of anything, but a new word in itself, indicating a woman's freedom from marital identification -- neither Miss nor Mrs. Because the word was not an abbreviation, no period was required. The test would be to name the longer form of the word abbreviated by "Ms." I think you will find that there is none. I am less certain about a plural -- the Ms's? -- but I will leave that up to you!

GENTLE READER: There is a reason that people are wary of questioning a member of the Etiquette Mavens' High Council, charming as we are, and charmingly as you have done so. We have long memories.

Yours is not as long as you think. You were not around when "Ms." was coined, as we can date it back to the 17th century. The full word was "mistress," and it was respectable in those days. "Mrs." and "Ms." are both abbreviations of "mistress" and thus take periods; "Miss," another derivative of the word, squeaks by without one as a sort of nickname. Because of unfortunate subsequent connotations, we do not use "mistresses" for the plural, but rather "Mesdames" or "The Misses" with the surname.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I recently became legally joined to my same-sex partner of many years. After the service, I commenced referring to her as my wife. I occasionally receive comments on how it is inappropriate to refer to her as such. Is there another word I should be using that will act as a stand-in for the rather cumbersome "woman with whom I am legally united"?

GENTLE READER: Spouse. And please don't ask Miss Manners for the plural.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am nine years old and I have a friend that is very forward. My friend always asks to sleep over, go places with me and my family, have snacks or eat over without being offered first. When I tell her this is not the time to do this, she pushes me over and over to ask my mom anyway.

This gets on my nerves. We have a good friendship other than this problem. What would be the proper way to get this problem to stop without hurting her feelings?

GENTLE READER: Nine is not too young to learn to say "no," and as your mother is presumably even older, she can help you.

When someone refuses to take "no" for an answer, that does not oblige you to come up with an answer that she will like better. However many times your friend asks the same question, you should give the same answer: "No, I'm sorry, this is not a good time." And the answer to "Why not?" is also "Because this isn't a good time."

You are supposed to keep this up until the other person's nerves, or rather her nerve, goes. But if you feel yours fraying, Miss Manners suggests saying, "Let's go ask my mother" so that lady can take over delivering the same statement.

:

The American public has grown too cynical to believe that a politician whose wife gazes at him with rapt adoration in public must be a nice fellow. They figure cannily that the wife has surely heard it all before, so she's faking to make him look good, and they are not to be fooled into thinking this means anything. Or she's just been programmed.

Of course, she can't look bored, either, thus proving once again that being a politician's wife is a no-win situation. (Politicians' husbands are not used in this way, because it would be assumed that they are the brains of the outfit and their wives have been programmed to be out front.)

What this sophisticated public now demands is that politicians make public declarations of love for their wives. Only then can they be deemed nice. And so they do.

"I'm lucky enough to be married to the most wonderful woman in the world!" the politician shouts to the crowd. Wild applause. Then comes a joke or two about how she's really the brains of the outfit. Wild applause. "We've been married for X years!" Wild applause. "Honey, I love you!" he shouts to her. They blow kisses at each other.

As soon as they can reunite, they hug and kiss to wild applause. And they cannot take a step together without locking hands like high-schoolers.

Surely Miss Manners cannot be the only person who finds this in dreadful taste. But maybe she is, judging from all that applause.

She understands that in a society where divorce is common, it is considered an achievement, if not a miracle of selflessness, to keep a marriage going. Also, much as we love gossip, it is a relief to have evidence that there is not yet another scandal brewing.

She approves of the overdue acknowledgement that spouses are often major behind-the-scenes factors in the success of a political career. Unless the marriage is a farce, there are bound to have been numerous professional contributions, as well as personal support.

So why does she object to public declarations of marital affection?

Because they are icky.

Exactly because we do believe in the bond of marriage, extolling one's spouse is nearly as gauche as bragging about oneself. The "nearly" is in there because one can modestly admit to being proud when others praise the spouse. To praise one's own spouse to others is a play for reflected glory: "Notice that this wonderful person chose me."

The "We can't keep our hands off each other" demonstration is another form of marital bragging: "You may have settled down, but we are spending decades in a honeymoon fever."

Some leeway is allowed to those actually in the first stages of romantic love, but even they are supposed to exercise some control. Expressing affection in front of others has the unflattering implication of "We wish you weren't here so we could really go at it."

Finally, it doesn't prove anything except an absence of manners. We all know that lack of character is not incompatible with being adored -- even by someone who does have character, more's the pity. And we have seen enough handholding couples split for good to suspect that at least some of them let go as soon as we stop watching and applauding.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Here is a conundrum faced frequently by would-be gentlemen who travel:

A woman in front of you in the boarding line is towing onto the plane a totally unreasonable amount of carry-on luggage. When she reaches her seat, she discovers, to nobody's surprise, that she can't even lift her suitcase off the floor. What course of action (or inaction) would you suggest for the gentlemen in such a situation?

GENTLE READER: It depends on whether the gentleman wishes to help the lady with her suitcase or to punish her for having brought it aboard. Miss Manners gathers you favor the latter, and is at least grateful that you wish to do it in a gentlemanly way.

In that case, you should spring up and say soothingly, "Here, let me help; that's much too heavy for you." As the lady smiles gratefully, you may add, "I'll get a flight attendant who can check it for you."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the world of business, is it ever appropriate to use rude language if a charming dunce is getting the best of you?

I lack what some call the "royal jelly." I am not particularly good-looking, and I do not possess the natural grace that sometimes enables others to persuade without the need for logic, reason or fact. I am intelligent, however, and I believe in my work. I am not content to allow my ideas to go unheard in the midst of a charm offensive.

I sometimes wonder if a well-placed insult might cut through the nonsense I sometimes hear from my colleagues. I know that an elegantly phrased barb can avoid the tint of rudeness, but when it comes from me, it usually flies over disinterested heads. But profanity will get people's attention, and hopefully will be forgiven after a well-reasoned argument.

I have always thought that etiquette and rhetoric were designed to help people overcome their natural limitations, but today's image-obsessed world seems oblivious to these arts, responding instead to a firm jaw and a steady gaze, or some such phrenology. I hope you can tell me I am wrong.

GENTLE READER: You are not good at being charming, so you are asking if being rude works just as well?

Well, no, actually it doesn't. As you were hoping, Miss Manners can tell you equivocally that you are wrong.

The reason that she can't tell you that unequivocally is that in the short run, the shock factor of rudeness does work. If you startle and intimidate your colleagues at meetings, and don't mind not having anyone with whom to go to lunch, you may, for a while, carry the day.

But then two things are bound to happen: You will be vilified and you will be copied. And when your colleagues are in the habit of using profanity, too, you will not only lose what advantage you had, but will retain the reputation for having lowered the tone.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I hope you can help me with what should be a simple question about addressing wedding envelopes. My mother, as do I, finds addressing women as "Mrs. Husband's Name" demeaning, as if the woman you are addressing has no value outside of her husband. You do an excellent job of updating etiquette with the times and I'd appreciate your advice on this issue. Is addressing all the envelopes "Mr. Husband and Ms. Wife Last Name" appropriate?

GENTLE READER: If you are interested in the dignity of women, you will kindly address them as they prefer to be addressed, and not remove the choice by superimposing yours on them in such a highly personal matter.

Miss Manners does indeed realize that etiquette must be updated to meet legitimate changes. She would not dream of addressing a lady as Mrs. with her husband's name if the lady had kept her original surname or preferred the title of Ms. But neither would she dream of mis-addressing as Ms. one who prefers the traditional form. And if nobody in either family knows the guests well enough to be able to find out which they prefer, what are they doing on the guest list?

: