Saturday, December 24, 2005
I read the following piece of blog somewhere (i am amnesiac, so it's a tough job remembering every detail):
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy – will you let me be yours?
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn. For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?
I remembered something in hindi which i learnt few years back when i was growing up, that punctuations distort the meaning of sentences, sometimes to the extent of catastrophe, such as aforementioned paragraph. The other day i and one of my friends were discussing about the scope of the popular phrase "I love thou". It is a common thing which is said, sometimes to fill up the period mostly reigned by a seemingly eternal silence, and sometimes as screensaver to ward of the monotony in a relation. My friend said, The silence sometimes says it all, without any literary help. I never thought about it, ever, and my train of thought might have been quite visible to her, as she continued, I love can never suffice for the feelings i have for u! It was a very big thing she hinted at that moment without realising it. It was something not related to love, but it was the limitations of words, which rarely fail to express the emotions to the other people, but they do fail! And i felt it not when i wanted to express myself, but when i wanted to remain silent! I had wondered that it was not that I Love which mattered to my parents o my dog, but it was my reaction to their actions which had led me to believe that i was their pet and so were they near to me. It was not a string of words which had made me feel home with them, but it was their consistent behaviour and actions across a large period of time which made me realise that. Words make our thoughts permanent, but they bind us in their limitations, for; what is a language for one is gibberish for another (otherwise we would have easily understood akkadin, had there been universal language). I never say that languages are vestigial, they are food for a relation to grow between two humans, without which any human relation will starve to death (which usually is the case). But the ultimate fodder is the nature which when fed to a relation for an aeon makes it strong, and then language is never needed to communicate, but that is when a long period is shared by two individuals, and for society, the language still binds us together.