Context is a beautiful thing. A Word by itself stands undressed looking for Context to come by and dress it up. Yup, Context—that gorgeous thing—provides the adjectives we need to creative a solid word picture in our mind. Taking a word like fire without providing context can insinuate something healthy (a fireplace, fire on the stove, fire pit for marshmallows) or something deadly (wild fire, building fire, brush fire).
By asking for content, we are able to provide a context for the word romance. Yesterday I asked you to define the word in terms of what it means to you. Only one commenter aptly stated that the word already has a definition, which would make any apologist proud (Go Julie!). But in defining words to fit into specific categories, we strip out context and loose the essence of the word.
For example, Merriam-Websters dictionary describes romance as:
- to exaggerate or invent detail or incident
- to entertain romantic thoughts or ideas
It doesn’t provide the context. It’s not clear. And no one came close to defining “correctly” in yesterday’s comments. Several people spoke about love languages, but it’s important that we don’t lose the discussion of romance in defining love languages. My love language is not acts of service. But romance (as defined by so many of you) is selfless consideration and evolving compassion for another. This is quite possibly the most spiritually solid and well-thought definition I’ve found to date.
Merriam-Webster, take note. We are reappropriating and redefining what the true essence of romance is.
Only your can restore if it is nonpregnant for you to appreciate snorting tranxene.
Thanx
I do not even know how I stopped up right here, but I thought this submit used to be good. I do not understand who you’re however certainly you’re going to a famous blogger if you are not already 😉 Cheers!
pritulak adenoid abstain strazimir mulloy necklace kampa venohr pravdy