Talk:I love you
The Page Itself and Formatting
I found this list on w:Talk:Computer music. I have no idea what it was doing there. I deleted it from that page, but it seemed like a waste to get rid of it entirely (even though I suspect it ended up in a bunch of other random places, too). This is the best place I could think of to put it. -- Merphant 04:58 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
If some languages need explanation, cannot they be linked to the appropriate page instead? And the accent a' is it existing in this sample? Ces 22:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be good to move the language explanations to their own pages. Even if a definition doesn't exist for that language yet, it would make a good start anyway.
- It looks like the page is in the process of being converted from plain ASCII to a wiki bulleted list. Maybe all the instances of a' got converted to á in the process. I'm too lazy to do a find and replace, so I guess it's up to you :) -- Merphant 06:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ancient Greek
The correct spelling in Ancient Greek are "σέ φιλῶ", "σέ ἀγαπῶ", "ἐγώ σέ φιλῶ", "ἐγώ σέ ἀγαπῶ".
Arabic
Wouldn't "more than one male or female to..." be a translation of "we love you"?
Czech
Although I am Czech, I have never heard "miluju faldimora". In fact, the word "faldimora" sounds very very strange. I cannot say, that nobody use it. However, it is clear, that the majority of Czechs do not understant it.(If someone do) --Nereus124 16:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
So I tried to find faldimora on Google and the only answer was just the word on English Wikitionary. The only colloquial form I know is Miluju tě(other inflection), that is very often used because we usually use colloquial inflections. The another form is Mám tě rád(see Slovak), but it means rather an expression of a pleasure(similar to German Ich habe dich gern, while Miluji/u tě is similar to Ich liebe dich). However, it is also very often used. --Nereus124 15:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
French
As far as I know, "Je vous aime" does not exist in French. This is because saying "I love you" to someone shows informality. I didn't want to delete it immediately, but can someone else verify the existence of the phrase? 88.106.154.54 02:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"Je vous aime" is a beautiful and meaningful phrase, indicating deep respect. "Je vous aime, madame/monsieur" would be used to give greater meaning in a formal situation such as a wedding anniversary .
- With a million and a half google hits, I’d say it’s here to stay. Besides, if a partner in a ménage à trois isn’t allowed to blurt out "je vous aime, mes chéries !" once in a while, it would be a travesty. —Stephen 03:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I would say "Je t'aime".
The form "je vous aime" could be acceptable if you were talking to a group of people, and "I love you" does generally express informality so they are both acceptable. — This unsigned comment was added by 84.13.1.251 (talk).
Normal German
I find that the sentence "Ich mag dich." should be added for "I love you" in German. It can be said to a person who you like or who you are in love with.
I think "Ich liebe dich" is often only used in a very serious relationship. That's why many people use "Ich mag dich" or "Ich hab' dich gern" to tell the person they have fallen in love with that they love him/her.
- "Ich mag dich" and "Ich hab dich gern" both mean "I like you", not "I love you in German". Maybe kids having their first crush say "Ich mag dich" instead of "Ich liebe dich", but that's the same in English. Angr 18:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
edit by an Austrian =)
Yes, "Ich mag dich" equal to "Ich hab dich lieb" means "I like you" but it's more used between good friends and family members. Of couse too between young kids, having their first crush. "Ich mag dich" is the first thing you say to a person you like, eg you know someone for some day. "You are very nice, I like you" but it isn't very common. when you really like one, eg you mum or your best friend you say "Ich hab dich lieb" or when you know a person a bit longer but it is to early to say "Ich liebe dich"
well, enough for now^^ I hope there are not so many mistakes, my english is not that good...
Norwegian
"Jg elskr dg" is a pretty unserious slang form for "i love you," i don't really think it should be here, but i don't really feel "qualified" to remove it. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.212.27.19 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-12 22:17:28.
- The fact that you recognized it as teenage slang qualifies you to remove it. :-) I removed it for you, though. Thanks. Rod (A. Smith) 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Jeg elsker deg", is the correct form ;) — This unsigned comment was added by 80.212.243.117 (talk) at 21:27, 15 August 2008.
jg elskr dg would be text-speek, to be perfectly clear about what it is... not slang, it wouldn't be pronounced verbally.
also, I'd like to submit that "eg elskar deg" should also be there, seeing as we have two written languages that are recognised as equal by the law. Cheers. -Eirik-
Sanskrit
This page is missing "I love you" in Sanskrit.
How to write "I love you" in Sanskrit? do any body here know?--67.15.34.250 10:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Tvayi Snehiyami"
I think the above one ("Tvayi Snehiyami") means the Universal love like saying. not exactly "I love You" kinda meaning. अनुराग anuraaga, प्रणय praNaya, अनुराग anuraaga, काम kaama, etc... will be well suited.
त्वां कामयामि (tvaaM kaamayaami) = I love you
Spanish (Madrid)
The term "me molas, tronca/tronco" is a slang way to say "I love you", yes, but so unserious that can be understood as an offensive, male chauvinist/feminist way to say that. I think it should be better delete that term. In fact, "molar" (the infinitive form of "molas", that is second person of the present simple) is a colloquial synonym of "gustar", that means "like", but it can also be used to express love (I don't know if that's also common in English). "Me" is the complement that indicates who receives the action of the verb (in this case, I, the first person), totally common in slang and formal language, and "tronco/a" (masculine and femenine forms, respectively) stands for "guy" (as "I love you, guy"), but very, very tacky.
So, as a madrileño, I never said that to my beloved. ;)
- I agree. —Stephen 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Or you can simply say "Yo te amo".
THAT'S IT!
The correct translation for the phrase "I LOVE YOU", in Spanish (from any Spanish speaking country), is: "YO TE AMO".
That's that! Don't go around the bush... there is NO OTHER CORRECT TRANSLATION IN SPANISH FOR THIS PHRASE.
Thank you very much, and have a nice day.
Mayra C. Coll September 18, 2011, 1:14 AM 65.6.165.27 05:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, maybe if you insist on a word-for-word translation... But unless there's been a sudden worldwide change since I went to sleep last night, Spanish is a pro-drop language... do you mean to suggest that "te amo" isn't a valid translation of "I love you"? — — 12:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- A pro-drop language? --Rockpilot 12:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Subject-pronoun-dropping, basically. Less basically: Pro-drop language. I dunno if pro-drop can exist by itself... I mean maybe, but for now I'll make pro-drop language — — 12:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Welsh
Although the Welsh 'Rwy'n dy garu di is correct and often uttered, no-one ever says Yr wyf i yn dy garu di (chwi) -- it's ridiculously formal. Could it be removed, please? Thanks. 163.1.137.26 20:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Can you go into more detail please? Would it have been used in formal situations in the past? Is it too literal a translation from English? Is it the choice of words or the syntax or what which gives this impression?
- If it's a legitimate formal translation we should keep it.
- If it's just a non-native speaker's attempt at translating into Welsh that has never been used, we should get rid of it. — Hippietrail 02:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Rwy'n dy garu di" is the current colloquial Welsh form. "Yr wyf i yn dy garu di" is the literary equivalent (that is, a fossilisation of the spoken form some centuries back) and the modern colloquial form derives from this. You would be unlikely however to find "Yr wyf i yn dy garu di" in any modern text, except maybe as a joke (for example, making fun of a learner who has learnt a high register of Welsh and uses it in inapproriate situations). Maybe it could be kept, and labelled - not in modern use; base form of the current colloquial form
Also the "chwi" form (formal "you" equivalent to French "vous") would not be preceded by "dy", but by "eich". "Yr wyf i yn eich caru chwi". The colloquial form is "Rwy'n ych caru chi". But I cannot imagine this ever having been used to one person only. If someone is at this stage in an amorous relationship he / she would long since have passed to the "ti" form (equivalent to French "tu"). Since "chi" is also "you" in addressing two or more people, it could conceivably be used in the sense "I love you (all)"
"Rwy'n dy garu di" is distinctly southern, but it is an acceptable written colloquial form. In the south "Rwy" is often / usually reduced to "W i". Thus "W i'n dy garu di" (but this is too informal, though it might appear in dialogues in novels, film scripts, etc). In the north "rwy" is not used; there is an equivalent form with infix "-yd-" which is "rydw i" (from the literary form "yr ydwyf i"). This is usually shortened to "Dw i" (and also expanded to "mi rydw i"!) In North Wales the natural form is "Dw i'n dy garu di".
Ianto Glan Tawe 13 Tachwedd / November 2004
I have to agree. It should be changed to: Rwy'n dy garu di ; Dw i'n dy garu di; Rydw i'n dy garu di .
David - Mai 5 08
Re. Ianto's statement: To describe "Yr wyf i yn dy garu di" as a fossilisation is perhaps misleading as it is a perfectly acceptable, although formal, statement in modern Welsh. It would be unusual to use it, as "I love you" is typically said in informal contexts. Further, all "rwy'n, dw i'n, w i'n, (mi) rydw i'n, yr wyf i'n" are contractions of "yr ydwyf i yn", so any of these before "dy garu (di)" should be acceptable and appropriate. J - Ionawr/January 23 2012.
Zulu
The Zulu translation (in romantic) seems completely wrong. It should be "ngiyakuthanda". http://www.zulu-culture-history.com/zulu_dictionary.htm
RFD
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
A word and phrase dictionary, or a word and phrase and sentence dictionary? Randy6767 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep (phrasebook entries). Note: do not combine nominations into a single section! --Connel MacKenzie 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? Randy6767 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It may be deceitful. \Mike 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because we have Category:Phrasebook, for exactly these types of entries. Furthermore, the entry "I love you" was en.wikt's #1 translated entry, last time I checked. So you'd need some pretty hefty arguments to make us take the nomination seriously - the phrasebook is a very long-standing, established feature. It has been a part of en.wikt longer than I've been involved with en.wikt. --Connel MacKenzie 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? Randy6767 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. bd2412 T 02:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. \Mike 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. —Stephen 11:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep!!!! :D. I love this entry. The translations section alone is worth a king's fortune. Incidentally, I think it might be worthwhile to make a I love you/Japanese entry and link to that in the translations instead of what is currently done, just because the phrase in Japanese uses completely different grammar (literally retranslated, "(you) (are) beloved"), and because there are ten million different phrases entered for the Japanese translation :D *Signed Language Lover*
- The above comments are about I love you. I abstain concerning I hate you.. though maybe I'm biased there since I love everyone and everything ;-) *Signed Language Lover*
I love you kept. Any objections to keeping I hate you? DAVilla 06:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I hate it. It's a sum-of-parts phrase obvious in meaning, not idiomatic, contrary, or significantly different in any way to what hate means.--Halliburton Shill 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Move all to Appendix:Phrasebook or subpages thereof. This is not what the mainspace is for, per WT:CFI. -- Visviva 02:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion debate (2)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
In principle, this seems sum of parts. It is not that I personally want to get this deleted, but, as long as the idiomaticy in CFI is read as non-sum-of-part-ness, I don't see what could rescue this entry. See also “I love you”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky 09:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is a common phrase and one that lots of people like to look up from time to time. It is very useful for English Phrasebook. Keep. If some policy disapproves of it, the policy is defective and should be fixed. —Stephen 09:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Wiktionary:Phrasebook. Unfortunately no changes have been made to WT:CFI to reflect this project, and God only knows what those changes should be. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you, Stephen, but fact is that dictionaries usually exclude this kind of material, at least those listed in OneLook. Having a list of model dictionaries that do include this kind of entries would strengthen the case for including them. --Dan Polansky 10:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have always assumed that users would appreciate our provision of phrasebooks. We don't have much of an ethos of service to our users. Thus, nobody seems to wish to take the trouble to suggest any criteria for such terms, suggestions about forms, format, etc. Thus, we don't have anything very useful.
- A phrasebook seems to me clearly most broadly useful when it is portable and bilingual (the speaker's native language and the target language), with phrases grouped by situation for rapid use or refreshing of one's repertoire before entering a situation. That is not the format we offer. Nor do we offer a convenient way for a normal user to produce or extract such a usable format from our data. Our entries could be useful as the raw material for generating accessible bilingual phrasebooks in electronic and print form. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, did anyone even bother to read the part about the phrasebook in CFI? From CFI: "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts." Phrasebook entries are supposed to be SoP. --Yair rand 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not only did we read it, we understood to be a complete punt, totally inadequate inasmuch as it depends on the term "useful". For whom? How determined? After all any attestable collocation is ipso facto useful to the three independent sources that used it. Are we supposed to vote on each entry? DCDuring TALK 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is no consensus on how to work the phrasebook, and CFI is left entirely ambiguous to reflect that. The only thing we do know is that a phrasebook should be included, it should include SoP phrases, and the phrases should be "common" (whatever that means). Until someone draws up a possible set of criteria, then yes, we do have to vote on each entry when it is RFD'd. It's not the only part of Wiktionary that no one has the slightest clue how to deal with. --Yair rand 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the phrasebook should be in appendices, as I assume that we don't want sentences such as Where can I change some money? as normal pages. But I love you should be kept as a page, because it's a set phrase, unlike Where can I change some money? (the brain has to build this sentence). Lmaltier 21:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- The one thing it is not is a set phrase. We can coordinate each term. "I love and despise you." "Joe and I love you." "I love you and your whole family". Pronouns can't readily be modified, but "I love you madly." shows that the verb can be. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, in its simple form, the brain has not to build it from its parts,it already knows it. Lmaltier 06:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The one thing it is not is a set phrase. We can coordinate each term. "I love and despise you." "Joe and I love you." "I love you and your whole family". Pronouns can't readily be modified, but "I love you madly." shows that the verb can be. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the phrasebook should be in appendices, as I assume that we don't want sentences such as Where can I change some money? as normal pages. But I love you should be kept as a page, because it's a set phrase, unlike Where can I change some money? (the brain has to build this sentence). Lmaltier 21:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is no consensus on how to work the phrasebook, and CFI is left entirely ambiguous to reflect that. The only thing we do know is that a phrasebook should be included, it should include SoP phrases, and the phrases should be "common" (whatever that means). Until someone draws up a possible set of criteria, then yes, we do have to vote on each entry when it is RFD'd. It's not the only part of Wiktionary that no one has the slightest clue how to deal with. --Yair rand 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- At Yair Rand: My mistake in overlooking the phrasebook passage in CFI, added to CFI in this edit in January 2008, and not voted upon AFAIK. I have posted more in Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky 10:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not only did we read it, we understood to be a complete punt, totally inadequate inasmuch as it depends on the term "useful". For whom? How determined? After all any attestable collocation is ipso facto useful to the three independent sources that used it. Are we supposed to vote on each entry? DCDuring TALK 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, did anyone even bother to read the part about the phrasebook in CFI? From CFI: "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts." Phrasebook entries are supposed to be SoP. --Yair rand 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Wiktionary is portable - it is available via a Blackberry or an iPhone. Bilingual would be useless unless we had a distinct set of entries for translations from every language to every language. We should, therefore, absolutely have phrasebook entries if that serves the increasingly wired-up world. bd2412 T 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a set phrase or even close to one. The entry is really only useful for its translations, but for a phrasebook entry, that doesn't bother me. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with our current format is that one-entry-at-a-time is useful for decoding only. A situation/context orientation would give someone a repertoire of expressions of possible use to efficiently prep for or deal with the situation at hand. Also, paper is remarkably useful, especially in situations where wireless internet coverage is not available and for those lazy indigents who do not have a wireless internet device. Or is this only for people affluent like us? DCDuring TALK 12:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Yair rand 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Templates
Hey guys, we have way too many empty templates. TeleComNasSprVen 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have to be more specific. I don’t see any templates. —Stephen 05:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I meant categories. (What was I thinking that day?) TeleComNasSprVen 21:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh. The categories are just there as a way for translators and linguists of a given language to find pages where their attention is needed. As soon as each language is checked and approved, that category goes away. —Stephen 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Afrikaans
Hello, Afrikaans translation gives ek is lief vir jou and ek het jou lief. However, ek het jou lief definition is I Know you. Is it a mistake? Pamputt 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t see "I know you" anywhere. ek het jou lief means I love you, although it is less commonly used than ek is lief vir jou. —Stephen 02:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was vandalism, which I reverted immediately. -- Prince Kassad 09:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
RFV discussion
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I'm fascinated how this is Portuguese. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm removing this (and above) because... using an English sentence in the writing of another language doesn't make it part of that language. This is just...ugh. :) — opiaterein — 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd consider it Portuguese if it's used in Portuguese context. --Yair rand 00:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedily removed several months back by Opiaterein (talk • contribs) and Rising Sun (talk • contribs). —RuakhTALK 13:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Site
Perhaps this comes in handy site. I can't really tell if all the entries are correct but I suppose someone else can. 81.68.255.36 08:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
capitalization
Several languages have entries which begin with uppercase letters, even though this would not seem to be appropriate, e.g. Old English, Romansch, Luxembourgish, West Frisian, Welsh. - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- In the second gloss ALL translations can be converted to lower case, IMO, including transliteration. Care should be taked with diacritics, though. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)