so, i was just enjoying another lazy day and watching the simpsons, when a certain one-time appearing character pointed out that the phrase “i miss you” can be offensive in some ways.

so i thought about it for a second and realized he did have a point there, and to break down this oftenly muttered sentence by millions of fellow socialites living in the internet generation (whether said in genial manner a propos to express endearment, or to just avoid awkward long-ended conversations): 

      i               miss                    you
subject         verb                   object

so setting all semantics aside, “you” is what is being “missed” by “i”, which is harmless in all aspects. but throw in semantics and a little bit of illogical analogy and “you” becomes the object of “i”. (and as you might have gussed by this point, all puns ARE intended in this case.)

using the same logic, i guess alot of other seemingly innocent phrases can be set on fire; phrases like “i love you“, ”i hate you“, “i want you” etc can also be seemingly objectifying the second/third party involved. but the difference with the aforementioned latter(s) from the former is probably within the fact that with the latter the so-called “objectifying” is an intended and premeditate course of action:

the love in “i love you” signals that the partner is an object of devotion and dedication, something that any loving couple should be entitled to hear; the hate in “i hate you” signals that the intended second party is an object of hostility and conflict, and such a phrase is necessary in quick resolvement of a dispute; the want in “i want you” signals that the second party is an object of desire, and such spontaneous utterances are required in establishing the foreplay of any flirting session/one night stand, etc.

so i guess the difference between “i miss you“  with the others just mentioned is the fact that with the verb “miss” the context in which it is usually spoken out is not as solid as “love,” “hate,” or “want,” and can to critical thinkers, represent an overstepping of personal boundaries. (something to the effect of 調子に乗りすぎing)

in comparisons, other languages seem to be one step ahead of english in the sense that the act of missing does not objectify any particular side of this reciprocal action. for example…

french tu me manques
the verb “manquer” (to miss) is a reflexive verb and implies reciprocality, yielding the literal translation “you are being missed”

japanese and korean 逢いたい/보고싶어
in both cases the phrase is a simple subject/objectless verb phrase, where the respective moras “to see/meet” and “want” combine together to form ”want to see/meet”. of course a subject/object can be added yielding “네가 보고싶어” or “君に逢いたい”, but neither of these tend to objectify any side–and although it is possible to add objectification to the sentence, it is often considered unnecessary and not often spoken out. 

mandarin 我想你
the mandarin equivalent is also like its english equivalent in the sense that its a clear subject-verb-object structure, but interesting to note that the word used in mandarin is closer to the word “to think” than the conventional “missing”, which i guess in semantics sense makes illustrates the action clearer (given that the word to “miss” also means to not cash in on an opportune moment, to involuntarily pass on something, etc.) the flexibility of the mandarin language also allows this phrase to be non-objective; instead of 　我想你, one could also say 好想你 which clerverly means “you are missed very much” all the while without the implications/grasps of the whole subject/object junk.

so yeah, i do realize that even in english, you could say “you are being missed” instead of “i miss you” to avoid this capricious circumstance, but that would be misinterpreting the whole point of this by taking that i’m a misanthrope that thinks no person should miss another, rather than the idea that even simple everyday things we take for granted can be distorted and perverted from its original purpose with reasonable ease.

in any case, i think its all bs, but i guess that’s just the way it is :p