The Space Beside You

There is a kind of language that two people develop when they have spent enough time together. It is not a language they deliberately learn. There are no lessons, no vocabulary lists, no grammar rules. It grows quietly out of repetition, familiarity, shared experiences, and the thousand little things that happen between two people who keep showing up in each other’s lives. I notice this language most when my husband and I play badminton.

Most of the week, we spend about an hour on the court simply volleying with each other. It is not always a game. Sometimes we are just keeping the shuttle in the air, returning one shot after another, moving around the court and finding a rhythm. There is something almost conversational about it. The shuttle goes to him, then to me, then back to him. We do not need to keep talking. After playing together for years, we have learned to read each other’s movements, the direction of a racket, a change in stance, a step forward or backward.

Sometimes, though, we play an actual game, and that is when our communication becomes more obvious. Last week, instead of our usual volleying, we played doubles with some of my male colleagues. My husband becomes particularly concerned when we play against a pair of men because the shots tend to be faster and stronger, and he worries that I might get hit by a smash. I know this because, when the game becomes intense, I sometimes notice that he has stopped playing his own game. He is watching me.

There is something almost comical about the way this happens. He will stand with his racket down, facing me, as though he is preparing to block the shuttlecock with a karate chop. He is a black belter, so perhaps, in his mind, this is a perfectly reasonable emergency response. Except that this is badminton, and he is supposed to be covering the court.

Sometimes he takes a shuttle that was clearly mine. I am already moving toward it, racket up and ready, when he suddenly swoops in and takes it anyway. After the rally, I look at him and say, “That was mine. I could have returned that.” Sometimes he gives me the resigned look of someone who knows he has been caught. Other times he simply says, “You were too slow.”

The funny thing is that he knows my game. He knows I can return a smash because he has seen me do it many times. He knows when I can reach a shot and when I cannot. Yet when he worries about me, he sometimes forgets what he knows. His concern changes the way he reads the court. He stops playing with me and starts protecting me, and in doing so, he sometimes leaves a large and very obvious space open.

I find this funny because it is such a familiar part of marriage. We can know someone very well and still misread what is happening in front of us. Familiarity can make us better at reading another person, but it can also make us too certain that we already know what they need, what they mean, or what they are about to do.

Perhaps that is why I have always been drawn to the idea of language. I have always thought of mathematics as a language, the language of the sciences. Mathematics lets us describe relationships, recognize patterns, communicate ideas, and make sense of things that may not be easily expressed in ordinary words. An equation can say something complicated with remarkable economy. A symbol can carry an entire relationship.

Standing on a badminton court, I sometimes think of its lines as a kind of mathematical picture. The court gives us a predictable grid. We know its boundaries. We know where we are supposed to stand and what counts as in or out. Yet the moment a rally begins, that neat geometry meets people making decisions in real time. The lines stay where they are. The players do not.

Badminton has its own language, especially when two people are playing as a pair. Some of it is spoken. “Mine” means I have it. “Yours” means you take it. “Leave it” can prevent two rackets from reaching for the same shuttle. But much of the communication is physical. Where you stand tells your partner what part of the court you are covering. The angle of your racket gives information about the shot you are preparing to make. A step forward can signal attack. A step backward can create space. Even the way you turn your body can tell your partner where you expect the shuttle to go.

When doubles partners have played together long enough, they become fluent in these things. They begin to anticipate one another. They know the patterns of each other’s games and learn when to step in and when to stay out of the way.

But anticipation is not the same as assumption.

That distinction matters far beyond the badminton court. Knowing someone should make us more attentive, not less. The more familiar we become with another person, the easier it is to stop listening carefully because we think we already know what they are going to say.

Marriage has its own kind of language. It is made from words, certainly, but also from gestures, routines, silences, private jokes, arguments, apologies, shared memories, and the small habits that become almost invisible because they are so familiar. Over time, two people develop ways of speaking that may not make sense to anyone else. A glance across a room can carry a whole conversation. A particular tone of voice can say, “Not now.” A familiar silence can mean comfort, irritation, exhaustion, or simply the need to think.

But even a shared language needs attention. We can hear what we expect to hear. We can interpret today’s silence using yesterday’s meaning. We can mistake knowing someone for knowing exactly who they are at this particular moment.

I think this is where peace enters the picture for me. Peace does not mean that everyone agrees or that conflict never happens. People misunderstand one another. They want different things. They make mistakes. What matters is whether there is enough communication to keep a disagreement from becoming a permanent distance. Someone has to speak. Someone has to listen. Someone has to clarify. Sometimes both people have to try again.

A badminton pair can have two very skilled players and still struggle if they cannot communicate. They can both be good at the game and still leave the same space uncovered, reach for the same shuttle, or hesitate because each assumes the other will take the shot. The court may be perfectly marked, but its lines cannot tell two people how to trust each other.

That is where mathematics comes back for me. We use patterns because they help us make sense of what we see and sometimes anticipate what may happen next. But a mathematical model is never the whole of reality. It depends on assumptions. When those assumptions no longer hold, the model has to be examined and adjusted. We do not blame reality for refusing to behave according to our equation.

People are not fixed equations.

We change. Circumstances change. The things we need from one another change. Even the same person can respond differently depending on the day, the situation, or what has happened just before. To know someone well, then, is not to memorize them. It is to keep learning their language as it changes.

Perhaps that is part of what makes a long marriage both difficult and beautiful. You do not eventually arrive at a point where you have completely figured out another person. You simply become more familiar with the language you have built together, while knowing that the language is still capable of changing.

My husband’s tendency to protect me on the badminton court is a small example. He knows I can play. He knows I can return a smash. He knows which shots are mine. Yet when he sees a fast shuttle coming toward me, something deeper than his knowledge takes over. His first instinct is to make sure I am safe. Sometimes that means taking a shot that was mine and leaving an inconvenient hole in our court.

I can point out the mistake, and he can insist that I was too slow. We laugh, adjust, and play on. We do not need to pretend that the mistake did not happen, and we do not need to turn it into an argument either. We acknowledge it, tease each other about it, and continue. The point is not to avoid every mistake. The point is to remain partners when the mistake happens.

Perhaps that is also what peace looks like at its most ordinary. Not the absence of conflict, but the willingness to remain in relationship when conflict appears. Not perfect agreement, but enough trust to communicate when something goes wrong. Not never hurting one another, but learning how to repair the places where we do.

Partnership is not perfect symmetry. There are days when one person carries more. There are moments when one has to step forward and another has to step back. Sometimes you cover the space your partner cannot reach. Sometimes you trust them to cover yours. Sometimes you take the shot. Sometimes you leave it.

And sometimes you have to remind your partner that the shuttle was yours.

I think this is why I keep returning to the idea of language. Mathematics, badminton, marriage, and peace may seem to belong to entirely different worlds, but each asks us to recognize relationships. Each asks us to pay attention to patterns without becoming prisoners of them. Each requires communication, adjustment, and enough humility to recognize that our first reading may not always be correct.

Perhaps marriage is less about finding the person who will always understand you and more about learning a language together. You learn the words, the gestures, the silences, the rhythms. You make mistakes. You misunderstand. You explain. You listen. You revise. You learn again.

Perhaps that is what an hour of volleying has quietly taught us. We do not have to win anything. We simply return what the other sends, again and again, adjusting to the pace, the angle, the unexpected shots. We keep the rally going.

Maybe that is what keeps two people moving together after all these years. Not the certainty that you already know every move the other person will make, but the willingness to keep watching, keep listening, and keep making room.

Because life will always send something unexpected across the court. The lines will remain where they are, but the people moving within them will change.

When it does, we adjust. We communicate. We move.

And somewhere between the two of us, the open space disappears.

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.