I love your horse

[leeyah]

Or even better:

我真的好中意你这匹马！I really love this horse of yours!

:D

[isela]

The usage of "爱" IS too strong for lots if not vast majority of Chinese.

As for the confusion when using "喜欢", I think one usually can interpret it with the tone and facial expression of the speaker. The more shy and subtle one seems, the more the meaning is toward the direction of "love" on the spectrum.

And, I believe 中意 is Cantonese!!!

[Lu]

Ok, the thread is a little ridiculous and the OP never came back to check (or just didn't reply), but it very nicely illustrates how Chinese is a Different Language and you can't just translate word-for-word, since

I love your horse.

becomes (for exampe)

我觉得你这匹马很不错。

which has completely different grammar, expression, word order, whatnot.

[muyongshi]

Anybody else get the feeling we are beating a dead horse?

[HashiriKata]

Anybody else get the feeling we are beating a dead horse?

It's probably safer (& kinder too!) to beat a dead horse...

[xiexieniii]

but from what I've seen on tv 'I'm in love with you' means the same as 'I love you', which is something different than 'verliefd'.

"I'm in love with you" is way stronger than "I love you"!

[Lu]

See, they should teach us that kind of thing in school.

How can it be stronger than 'I love you'? I thought that was pretty much the strongest expression/feeling?

[muyongshi]

"I'm in love with you" is way stronger than "I love you"!

Ummm, I disagree. While I could understand what you mean in a romantic sense I hear these two expressions and the thing about being "in love" is that it sounds like it could change. So while it may emotionally sway me, the feeling I get is not one of an enduring love so for me "I love you" is stronger because it implies, I love you now and I WILL love you tomorrow. Nothing can change it, the fact is I love you and that doesn't change. It doesn't have any other things attached like I'm in love with you which implies that the great possibility of being out of love is there. I'm not great at describing grammar but even the grammar of the sentence speaks this to me. In the first the verb is "to be" in the second the verb is "love". The second one cuts it all away. Anyway, my own view.

[chenpv]

麦当劳叔叔 certainly has another opinion on that, muyongshi.

[muyongshi]

麦当劳叔叔 certainly has another opinion on that, muyongshi.

Oh great, now Ronald McDonald is the authority on love. This world IS going to hell in a hand basket.

[Lu]

Muyongshi, thank you for the explanation, it makes sense.

[chenpv]

Be cool there! I didn't say 麦当劳叔叔 was an authority on 'love', nor intend to confront your view by a single example. I was simply intrigued by the fact that 麦当劳叔叔 is so successful on tricking people to buy junk food and supersizing them up by a harmless slogan or whatnot.

[muyongshi]

Be cool there! I didn't say 麦当劳叔叔 was an authority on 'love', nor intend to confront your view by a single example. I was simply intrigued by the fact that 麦当劳叔叔 is so successful on tricking people to buy junk food and supersizing them up by a harmless slogan or whatnot.

Haha, yeah, sorry, I was being pretty sarcastic in my last post. I really liked that insight. It cracked me up!

[Lugubert]

My understanding as a non-native speaker of English is that you can love just about anything in that language. You can love kittens, tomatoes, a cool summer breeze etc., and a bus conductor in London could address you using 'love' (the word, of course) (or even refer to you as 'dove', for that matter). But if you're in love with somebody, it's a really serious matter.

[muyongshi]

My understanding as a non-native speaker of English is that you can love just about anything in that language. You can love kittens, tomatoes, a cool summer breeze etc., and a bus conductor in London could address you using 'love' (the word, of course) (or even refer to you as 'dove', for that matter). But if you're in love with somebody, it's a really serious matter.

I think your understanding seems to be pretty spot on in terms of how we view it in our contemporary. However, as you can see from my post above, I disagree with that usage for the main reason is that we have changed the concept of love into one that is not definitive, it is purely emotional and removes our old core values of faithfulness and dedication. Also, in terms of the usage of "i love x" when it used in terms of objects, it does not necessarily denote a relationship with that object as much as an attachment of some sort due to the enjoyment it brings. Even when I say I love my dog, it refers more to the attachment not the relationship. Relationships with animals are so limited compared to our human counterpart. IMHO. But a change of tone and direction by saying I love you to a person denotes an unchanging relationship. It is not based upon an attachment as much as a deep understanding and acceptance of that person. Anyway, that is how look at it.