Freebies Anyone? (That Free Thing)

Freebies Anyone? (That Free Thing)

If I Loved You

(Thought-Random)

        A lot has been said about this thing called 'love'.    For one, it is a basic human need -  to love and be loved.  And this need to love,  when met,  apparently would harmonize all else to one's general well-being.  Song and poetry have identified it as a many-splendored thing,  a strong predilection for anything,  an affectionate feeling for another,  a decisive will for the well-being of this other,  and we could go on and on.

          But let me dwell on what I think it means to love another.   Simply,  this type of love would mean affirming the unique value of the one loved,  trying to fulfill the needs of the one loved,  forgiving and forgetting the failings of the one loved.   This then implies a basic attitude of total concern for this loved one.

        There are a couple of aspects to consider though,  foremost of which would be that love is not a feeling.  Feelings are indeed related to love as the first attraction of love is usually experienced in terms of very strong affectionate sensations.   If I were to be in love with you on the basis of feelings alone,  I'd long to be close to you at all times.  I'd go sleepless nights for each day that I don't see you.  I'd willingly go on forever without food or  patiently with any or all inconvenience ... for as long as the reason were you!   In other words, I'd  go acting  the prima donna of the insane!

          But feelings are fickle.  I may feel on top of the world in the morning at one point  -  only to feel so down by the end of the day.  So it would definitely be fatal to identify love with  feelings.   You know what I think of love?   Of true love?   It  would be nothing less than a  well-thought serious decision.  It certainly can not  be just  a feeling!

        Yet another aspect would be commitment,  which by definition,  is a state of being bound emotionally and intellectually to a course of action  or to  a person.... it  is a sincere and steadfast fixity of purpose.   Thus can  I  enter into a love-relationship only with one - and this entails a choice anchored on the amount of things I can share with you... our capacity to fulfill each others needs, interests, values....down to what is called 'chemistry'.   In this wide, wide world,  you will be the one who is just right  for me and  the one to whom my whole life and existence will belong.

        Love then is basically practiced in the act of 'sharing'.  You and I  committed to each other in a love-relationship share each other's life, - each other's pains and joys.   A known author  I've read contends, among others,  that  'communication' is the word for 'sharing'.   Meaning,  if  I communicate a secret of mine to you,  we  share it and we have it in common.   If love is sharing and sharing is communication,  this then makes communication  the very essence of love, don't you think?   It might also be said that communication  would be  'the key to staying in love'  - because staying in love is to actually love,  to keep sharing and living out one's commitment.  The work of love is to achieve total transparency and well,  this apparently is not very easy to achieve.  But 'love works for those who work at it!'

          Now communication further encourages dialogue as much as discussion.   Another author makes an arbitrary distinction between the two in that the former entails information exchange of emotion,  whereas the latter deals with the things predominantly of intellectual nature.  So that  in a love-relation with you,  part of this relationship would be an exchange of ideas.... a discussion of plans, choices, values.  There is a good chance I won't agree with you in some,  or even in most of these ideas,   - leading to a break-down in our communication.  Which is why dialogue comes in as a significant complement for discussion.... it is important for us to be free in expressing our emotions as well.   This expression of emotion should, in fact, be a must.    I would have to share my emotions with you if I am to share  my ideas totally  -  so that our affection for each other would deepen even if we hold differing views on things.

        So then  now,  how would I love you?  I would love you with my heart and soul!   I would love you with the deepest of feeling and with the strongest of commitment - that's how  very much I would love you, yes.   If  I loved you! 

           

"Must of had" or "Must have had" ? -

                                                                                                                                     ---   That seems to have been the question of my friend Bernie,  so well - let me just pick it up in here.

   

        Right on will I say that between one and the other, the latter is the correct one.   We say: 'I must have fallen asleep.'  Or maybe, 'I must of fallen asleep!'  We say "He must have had it!" and "He must of had it!"But I do hear people interchange these two pairs of utterances, it's true: -  'must have had'  and 'must of had'.   I am not just sure if they also write it as 'must of had' - still, this is not grammatical.... it wouldn't make sense.
       If we were to argue for the grammaticalness or the correctness of  'I must have fallen asleep',  this we have to oversimplify...even if,  by chance, we have to wake up demons of old, uninteresting, grammar classes.   The predicate or the second half of the sentence,  (the first half being made up of the subject 'I'),  is made up of the verb 'fall asleep' preceded by the so-called helping verbs 'must have '.   As it is, we have an instance of  two helping verbs.  The first, 'must', a modal of necessity and the second 'have', the helping verb for a perfected or finished action, when used together puts forward the probable happening of the main verb 'fall asleep'. Which is why,  if I may go on,  rather than thinking of the verb as in the past tense, because it is not time identified, .... it is actually in the past perfect  tense - it is focused on a completed action.

        So that now,  if we were to put together the lexical items, 'must of fallen asleep',  the item 'of' would have no business being there.   For one,  'of'  being a preposition,  it comes before a noun phrase as when we say, 'of Bernie',  'of the sunset',  'of my insatiable curiosity'.   We don't say  'of jumped', or  'of dancing'.   And we wouldn't say, 'of fallen asleep'. Instead, we say 'have fallen asleep.
  
        In the same manner, we could say 'He must have had it!", but sometimes, we hear 'He must of had it!' and the latter utterance is not correct.   We do have an explanation for that, however.   I talked to my granddaughter, Tanya, at the University of Southern California,  and she says:   "I think the proper way is to say 'must have had',  but when you slur it, it kinda sounds like 'must of'.   That's why it's caught on so much we're not sure which one is right."  And I think so, too.,

        I guess,  I'd also want to point out that phonetic concern which makes for the situation.   We actually don't say 'must have had'  in single words all the way.  In speech,  we actually contract it into 'must've had' - what Tanya indicates as 'slur'. And notice that the schwa sound, the 'uh' sound,  in the contracted 've' from 'have' is also the very same sound in  'of' in 'must of'.  Because  'of'  isn't really pronounced with an 'f' sound;  it is, instead, pronounced with a 'v' sound, this is carried over to what Tanya says of  the utterance  'must have' - that it "kinda sounds like 'must of" pronouncing the 'f ' of 'of' here as 'v' and there goes the term 'must of had'   So they do sound the same, but sorry, this does not make our 'must of had' correct.

        Therefore,  if only for the sake of being grammatical,  we use 'must have had' or 'must've had'  rather than 'must of had'!   Right, Bernie?

                                                     --------------------------------------------

      Thanks, Bernie Floresca!
      Thanks, Tanya Parker!