i see you've added some extra explanation to enlighten me
i guess the nuance i missed is the one introduced by the "lifelong" epithet.
the reason i missed it (and i suspect a lot of people will too) is that it is very theoretical.
in fact it is not really accurate in this sentence.
for there is an implicit hidden word which is "candidate"
your statement is about a "candidate lifelong companion" which is not a spouse (yet) and might be replaced by another "candidate lifelong companion".
candidate lifelong is not exactly lifelong.
otherwise there would be no point in trying, would there?
the fact one feels the need to "try" suggests one's ability for lifelong commitment is not great.
in other societies, people would marry without knowing each other.
marriage/love was/is a pledge.
today people think "liking" or "feeling attracted to" is "loving".
as a result, one day they "love", the other day, they "love" someone else and stop "loving" the previous "lifelong companion".
i guess the nuance i missed is the one introduced by the "lifelong" epithet.
the reason i missed it (and i suspect a lot of people will too) is that it is very theoretical.
in fact it is not really accurate in this sentence.
for there is an implicit hidden word which is "candidate"
your statement is about a "candidate lifelong companion" which is not a spouse (yet) and might be replaced by another "candidate lifelong companion".
candidate lifelong is not exactly lifelong.
otherwise there would be no point in trying, would there?
the fact one feels the need to "try" suggests one's ability for lifelong commitment is not great.
in other societies, people would marry without knowing each other.
marriage/love was/is a pledge.
today people think "liking" or "feeling attracted to" is "loving".
as a result, one day they "love", the other day, they "love" someone else and stop "loving" the previous "lifelong companion".
Comment