Love of language

Disclaimer: what I have understood here may be faulty and should be discussed and questioned in dialogue with the Beloved Subject. In this respect it is only what I have understood and may not correspond to reality in everything. However, I hope that I have correctly recognized the key points, otherwise it would be a pity.

The Beloved Subject seeks like-minded people who share her joy in eloquence, orthography and subtlety, in language, reflection and interesting thoughts.

It is important to adhere to the spelling and grammar in order to understand each other correctly and thus to be able to keep the meaning in exchange at a high level. The comma, for example, is an important source of meaning, because the correct use of the comma determines the meaning of what is being said. If someone doesn’t take it so precisely here, then he or she accepts in a relaxed and casual way that one cannot be in contact on this meaningful level, but has to correct it again and again and that a statement first comes out wrong. It is important to avoid such situations. Also to swap “dass” and “das” (similar written german pronouns) can decide on the meaning of whole sentences. The perpetuation (and spurring) of the exchange occurs where this concern for meaning is maintained virtually throughout a dialogue.

It’s great when people can fixate a conversation in front of their inner eye, get quotations right, formulate paraphrases and, above all, keep an eye on the chronology of the conversation. The love of language here as a love of meaning and a means of being able to communicate to another person. It is meant to be something connecting and not elitist. This love of language appeals to the possibility of being able to do something that you long for and that has always given you pleasure. Here: to be able to really get to know someone else – without a precise language one cannot describe the subtle states that are conducive to love. It is not about the elitist, but here especially about the fact that language is the means that helps you to get close to each other. Everyone who would like to get close to another person should be interested in being able to communicate with the other person in such a way that you can tell each other everything.

It is also important here to be able to follow a conversation. One shouldn’t take too long to answer, so that a flow of conversation is created that keeps the exchange alive. What is said should refer to what the other person has said (whether abstract or concrete), otherwise it becomes a monologue, which in turn invalidates the meaning of the conversation. So here we are talking specifically about the love of language also about the love of exchange and conversation (debate, discussion, dialogue). If someone makes insinuations and expects the Beloved Subject to respond to them, even though she has already said that she does not read between the lines, this is again a sign of lack of meaning. Fidelity to the language and the word is important. Reading between the lines leads into the dream world and the beloved subject does not enter it in order not to get lost to each other. This means (in order not to get lost) that she immediately responds if she suspects that something was implicitly said to clarify this immediately and so no “foreboding” can arise, which would lead to a wrong understanding. Here language functions as an anchor and security, because it supports the concrete and manageable and is therefore also a means of coherence and thus health-promoting. “She does not wish to presume to interpret what he might have meant”

It is also important to remain faithful to the text and to be able to trust that the conversation partner will put in benevolent, loving intentions. The text and exchange is more beautiful when it is free of doublespeak. The love of language suggests that both, syntax and intentions reach the other person and that it is important to communicate meaningful / without misunderstanding. Passive-aggressive sprinklings and statements that are implicitly suggested to the other person in the text (often from false motives) diminish the beauty of the text, because they reveal that the exchange has a conflict.

One should follow customs that are conducive to lively communication. For example: it is annoying when counter-questions are asked before a question has been answered, because this reveals disrespectful behaviour. It always shows a little bit, that one is more interested in presenting oneself than in giving the other the opportunity to get to know each other. In general, however, what is conducive to the meaning of the question is appropriate. This can also mean that a counter-question, used as a rhetorical stylistic device, can be appropriate at the right time. The beloved subject does not feel involved, she feels excluded when the liveliness of the conversation loses its self-expression behind a wall. In other words: when the conversation partner only likes to hear himself/herself speak without really talking to the other person (without really being there). But: long messages can also be nice if they are formulated in the interest of exchange and the text is full of the fact that the other person has understood everything correctly so far.

The Beloved Subject is subtle and sensitive to the vocabulary appropriate to a situation, which reveals that the other is (still) foreign to a subject. Words spoken can reveal that someone is not able to understand something. This is not meant negatively, because here language has helped to reveal how suffering can be avoided, and revealing the potential for suffering is good here, because language can help to reveal to each other where one stands, and makes it possible to avoid situations in which one does not do each other good. On the other hand, there are limitations in terms of what belongs in a conversation. She does not like to encounter blockages: when the other person does not want to go deeper, but tries to break off a flow of thoughts because cognitively or from his preferences he is not able to maintain or lead such a flow. It does not help if the partner always reads between the lines and misinterprets the text or taps it as it fits into his own view. In this way the other person then no longer refers to what is said, but rather fabulates it. She takes said things as they are and interprets nothing into them in order to be able to really understand the other person. But she also reads the attitude/opinion out of what is implicitly said and then addresses this openly. It is therefore quite appropriate to respond to this when one notices that the other person does not convey the messages in what is said, in order to bring the dialogue back to the level of language. Since this literally meant (concrete) exchange is often foreign to people, it is appropriate to reveal to the other person when he/she has become unfaithful to the language by pointing out that he/she implicitly transports a meaning and that this is not conducive to mutual understanding.

Insults do not belong in a good conversation. The Beloved Subject does not insult the other and also wants the exchange to take place on this basis of a benevolent and interested dialogue, in which one is open to new insights and goes in search of the mysteries and peculiarities of the other (getting to know each other). The most beautiful thing for the Beloved Subject would be to encounter a situation in which something really profound is said (not just empty phrases), something that you can think about all night and that keeps you busy (something new).

Answering questions is a pleasure, because every answered question allows the other person to get to know you better and thus shows that there is a corresponding interest. She is willing to explain herself so far that the other person even knows what he or she needs to do to be in contact with her. She notices when someone doesn’t understand something, who is interested in her and then gives comments on how to understand it correctly, if you ask.

The Beloved Subject likes puns and sometimes makes a pun or teases you a little bit with behaviour that she herself finds bizarre in your demeanor, in order to start the discussion with a challenge that draws the other person out of his reserve. Confrontational dialogues and arguments are a passion, because they bring out the very individual that is worth talking about.

In order to understand each other correctly, it is important to communicate and reflect on the terms. She taps these things for their authenticity, introduces definitions and criteria and thus does not run blindly through everyday life. She finds it very annoying, if someone is not able to follow simple rules of the language, concerning the correct spelling, correct use of grammar (with all that goes with it, genetive and co., dative and accusative), correct use of idioms; then he is an idiot (except for recently arrived foreigners, or elderly people who came to the country at a very old age).

It is important to her, that someone is not upset when she says what she thinks: one can simply disagree. She loves to dissolve wrong conclusions in conversation with each other and thus help each other – to show someone where they have misconceptions. It is about using arguments to convince someone that they are wrong. She likes to track down thoughts and statements – thoughts on a question, a thesis, something to boil down to a core; and then to say and think about this topic that has been raised, which manifests itself in a question. The love of language here is therefore also a love of a common path together towards a goal.

“You should always write and say what you think, as long as it fits logically.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *