we could not talk or talk forever and still find things to not talk about. in "love, actually," colin firth's character is a writer who falls in love with his foreign maid, aurelia. their feelings for each other develop despite a tremendous language barrier; he does not speak portugese, she does not speak english. their love language is "acts of service." she cleans his house and brings him coffee, he keeps her employed. obviously, romantic love was inevitable.

now, could this actually happen? could the inability to verbally communicate with each other really be just a traversable barrier? romantics might say that speaking the same language is not as important as the ability to really "communicate." there are hand and body gestures after all, and pictograms, and facial expressions. love is universal -- like math, music, and um, more math?

but honestly, could you imagine falling in love and sustaining a relationship where the two of you couldn't even discuss anything beyond the simplest of subjects? "how was your food? tres bien. ni hao ma? i'm feeling excellent today. how do you feel about the role of physical discipline in our child's upbringing? qué?"

do you see the potential problems here?

most people cite communication and openness as a vital part of a successful relationship. how can you really communicate with someone that you can't even talk to or understand? and what if both of you eventually learned a common language, only to find out that you disagree on everything? what do you do then? "the whole time i thought she was saying 'i love everything about you' when really she was saying 'i love cheese.'"

does love really conquer all? i somehow doubt it. but maybe talk is cheap and a real soul connection is what's important. after all, i've only dated english speaking females and eighty percent of the time we weren't successful in talking or communicating in the least.