At What Age did You Have Your 1st CRUSH?

[Jacaylbaro]

Putting aside all the pholosophy ideas,,,,, most of people i met believe that LOVE means S*X . . and you can see this in the ground.

 

so, i repeat my question again:

 

Is it must to have S*X with the one you love ???

 

Peace

[dawoco]

Jacaylbaro, simply NO because then you aren't inlove, but in lust.

That is my take on it, but then again, defining the whole things is impossible as everyone has their own take on it.

 

As for having a crush, my dugsi teacher was in his 40's and i was around 4, so i didn't get the oppertunity to explore that particular emotion.

If only he was 10 yrs younger and i 2 yrs older

[Mutakalim]

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro:

Putting aside all the pholosophy ideas,,,,,

Peace

Alahayow qof aanan wax ogeeyn ha cadaabin

[nuune]

lol mutakallim, adiga ayaamahan wax lee kaa yaabiyo niyahow, aamiin by the way

[Curly]

mutakallim, I actually understood that, and Amen to that.

 

 

You know what they say ignorance is bliss.

[Tuujiye]

Waraa Jaceel baro fiiri waxa aa sameysay nin yahoo...Mutakalim oo wiligiis waz u duceen aa maanta duco ka keentay..Dhib badnidaa nin yahoo..

 

Dawaco kaalay adi saqiir nimo hadaa wax ku jecleed, hada wax maba jeclaan kartid aan u maleynaa..lol..

 

Sue good to hear you say you finaly understood some somali.. ..keep it up..

 

wareer badanaa!!

[Jacaylbaro]

I don't believe what so called LUST and so on . . . U can love someone but never be lust . . . . or it is just a justification to sleep with her ???

[Qac Qaac]

Lust and love are 2 different things...

 

is one degree higher than attraction is a wishful thing, u wanna be around that person u r attracted to in sexual way that's lust...

 

love on the other hand, compines lots of things, and lust maybe in it, that's why ppl can't comprehend love, is too broad, it is made of too many things coming together at one time.. mercy, kindness, attraction, lust, want, need, desire. all of them together and many more make up love.

[Serenity]

My first crush was at the age of 4 or 5. His name was Hashim and was probably 2 to 3 years older I. He was the cutest thing that my pre-school eyes ever laid eyes on. He had sun-kissed skin, cutest smile and the softest Hindi hair LOL. His parents were friends of the family, so I use to see him all the time. Then all of the sudden they moved from the middle east to VA in US around mid 80s and haven't seen him since then . Couple of years back I heard that he still lives there and every bit HOT.

 

Anybody that knows him, let a sister know..LOL

 

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

P.s. I would like to take the opportunity to say hello to the fellow forumers and that I will hopefully be an active member here.

 

Salama

[sheherazade]

I'm SO surprised that 4 yr olds have crushes! Are you guys/gals serious?

[Mutakalim]

Originally posted by Sullen_Sue:

mutakallim, I actually understood that, and Amen to that.

 

 

You know what they say ignorance is bliss.

It seems that you are insinuating that you do not understand most of what I write; the adverb "actually" signifies that. I am sorry to leave you behind.

 

I suppose Thomas Gary, the eighteenth century poet, was right when he wrote "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise". He was not, however, advocating that ignorance is always acceptable. I am sure you have heard the cliche "what you do not know cannot hurt you". This, I think you would agree, is not true

 

With Salaams

PK

[NGONGE]

^^^

I think she was talking about her “difficulties†with the Somali language. See? Now you scared the poor girl away. Heh.

[Mutakalim]

If she was referring to her inaptitude with regards to the Somali language, then she has made a double referential ambguity. Ambguity in language, whether it be double referential or grammatical, ought to be avoided.

 

And finally, words only have meaning when they are used in a context; "meaning as use" is a philosoco-linguistic theory of meaning, and with respect to other competing theories of meaning, this theory is accepted by linguists, philosophers, and philologists (i.e. Chomsky, Wittengstein et al) to be the most plausible. The adverb "actually" cannot mean anything in this context save that she does not understand most of what I pen. Thusly, clarity requires that the proposition be written as "I actually understand your Somali" not "I actually understood what you wrote". One cannot, if one be a good writer, assume unnecessarily, anything about the reader.

 

Although this might be percieved by some as painfully pedantic, I must own, it is imperative that we avoid, as best we can, ambiguities of language. A writer cannot assume that a reader knows something about the writer; this is the rationale behind an acedmecian's literary castigation of "personal allusions". Allusion, although an effective poetic device, cannot be erroneously invoked.

 

With Salaams

PK

[NGONGE]

Heh. All true and very informative, saaxib. I for one welcome this voluntary lesson. Still, I believe the topic of discussion to be unworthy of an academic like rigorousness when penning a reply. I might be wrong.

[nuune]

ceesaan yaroo mina shaakriin, injir booda ladiina toorrey taclamuuna waraa muttakalim, though I learnt many words from you by just searching their meanings, but I have to say, I tried my best to read and re-read what you just wrote, I still cannot understand one bit.

 

ps. Mutakalim bro, it would be good idea if you open a topic that you gather all your mutakalimology stuffs, and we can benefit from it,if u don't mind, otherwise it is okey if it is difficult.