-2

Ok, I think there are 2 ways to find out if a person is interested in you for dating.

  1. "Love through eyes" is like 2 people look at each other and somehow they feel that the other like or is interested in the opposite. So they just go out for a date just cos they look at the eyes.

Note: it is not necessary cos of physical look but you also have a feeling that that person is like you and you can tell by looking into his/her eyes.

  1. "Love though mouth" (or maybe say "Love through talking") is like 2 people may not be interested at the first time they see each other but after you talk to the other many times and through time the "Love" can be developed because you understand the opposite through many conversations with them.

So should i use the common term "Love at the first sight" instead of "Love through eyes". But I think the term "Love at the first sight" is quite strong cos 2 people would rush into each other right at the first time, while "Love through eyes" is simply that you have a good feeling with the other and you would love to date him or her but is not necessary rush into her for a very strong love as in "Love at the first sight".

How about "Love though mouth", is it better to say "Love though conversation" or "Love through talking" or "Love through understanding" (you understand someone after you have a lot of conversations with him or her)

  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about wording, and not a question about English with answers that might be helpful to other English language learners. – ColleenV parted ways May 21 '16 at 16:48
0

It depends on how you're planning on using the terms.

If you're writing an blog post or a book about the nature of love, and you want to set forth that there are two ways a romantic relationship can start and will be describing them as you do here, and you want to give them catchy names, you could label them "love through eyes" and "love through mouth". More idiomatic in English grammar would be "love through the eyes" and "love through the mouth"; really hip bloggers might simply call them "eye love" and "mouth love".

In any case, you might find that "mouth" is not a great synecdoche for your purposes, because when used as a synecdoche for talking, it has a slightly negative valence (e.g. "shut your mouth", "running his mouth", "dirty mouth"). "Lips" and "tongue" are also idiomatic to use as synecdoche for speech, but be aware that "lips" has a very romantic connotation (strong association with kissing) and "tongue" has sexual associations (I suspect most English-speakers' first interpretation of "love of the tongue" would be "oral sex".) Instead of a body part, you can use "word" as a synecdoche for speech, and that would work fine, though you might run into some negative valence that something is "only words", meaning false.

So if you are promulgating a theory about romance in such a way, it's a stylistic choice of yours whether to use such a figure of speech. You might instead prefer to refer to them by their most salient aspect, such as "attraction" vs. "communion" (you're welcome). You might also describe them as "quick love" vs. "slow love", which I believe has venerable usage as a paradigm if not an idiom, in Western thought, and will be pretty readily understood by your audience correctly, but, again, comes with some moralizing value judgment associations (e.g. that slow-grown relationships are more mature).

But maybe you're not writing a book, just hoping to have words to express your idea in conversation. If you were hoping to find terms that English speakers will know immediately of what you're speaking, without your having to explain it, I think you're out of luck. If you are going to be trying to use your terms in conversation, as new coinage, be aware that native English speakers are prone to assume that any non-standard expression is not a deliberate new coinage, but an error.

Were I trying to discuss the concepts you indicate, I think I would venture the original "love from liking" and "love from learning". For one thing, lovely alliteration lol. Also, a pleasing parallel construction, as you have been going for. And, importantly, neither is pejorative, giving them equal valence: if I want to say one or the other is superior in some way to the other, I can then make that explicit. I'd rather the value judgment not get baked into the terminology.

And I'd fully expect to have to explain what I meant by them.

  • great answer, so i will use eye love and communion love. Thank you very much for your thoughtful answer – Tom Sep 21 '14 at 3:06
0

Love is a complicated thing and there are a range of emotions that accompany it.

That said, terms like "eye love" or "love through eyes" are not readily understandable in English; you would almost assuredly have to explain what you meant. You defined eye love as:

two people look at each other and somehow they feel that the other likes them, or is interested in them

English does have many words that describe this sort of thing. One that comes to mind is infatuation; from NOAD:

infatuate (v.) (be infatuated with)
be inspired with an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for : she is infatuated with a handsome police chief

There is also moonstruck, which NOAD defines as:

moonstruck (adj.)
unable to think or act normally, esp. because of being in love.

So, I might say something like, "Tommy saw my daughter from across the cafeteria, and was moonstruck. By Friday, he had worked up enough courage to ask her out."

There is also the idiom head over heels, which has an interesting usage note at TFD:

head over heels (in love)
to be in love with someone very much : It's obvious they're head over heels in love with each other.
Usage notes: often used with fall to describe the beginning of a relationship: They met at a nightclub and instantly fell head over heels for one another.

There's also the term puppy love, which NOAD calls "an intense but relatively shallow romantic attachment, typically associated with adolescents." And there's the noun crush, which NOAD says is:

crush (n.) a brief but intense infatuation for someone, esp. someone unattainable or inappropriate : she did have a crush on Dr. Russell.


On the other hand, your definition of "love through mouth" as:

people who are not be interested [in each other] the first time they see each other but after they talk to each other many times, love is developed over time

I wouldn't call this "love through mouth" or even "love over conversation." You are describing a deeper love that evolves slowly over time. While English has a few terms that describe that burst of emotions that you call "eye love," I can't think of anything that describes this more gently developing love. In fact, if I were describe it, I'd probably use a term that describe infatuation, and negate the term:

  • Linda and Bob's relationship was no puppy love; they were good friends for a long time before they started to develop romantic feelings toward each other.

There are a few words you can use to described the intermediate feelings between first getting to know someone, and first falling in love with someone. A couple that come to mind are warmth and fondness; such words could be used in a conversation that goes something like this one:

Sara: I'm being to develop a real fondness for Dave.
Tina: Are you falling in love with him?
Sara: I don't know if I'd call it "love" yet, but I'm definitely warming up to the thought.


If I was describing the difference between these two concepts to my teenagers, I wouldn't use "eye" and "mouth"; instead, I would use "heart" and "brain":

This is easier said than done, but don't fall in love with your heart, fall in love with your brain.

where heart refers to early, impulsive emotions, and brain refers to a more deliberate and thoughtful process.

  • this "infatuate" is too strong – Tom Sep 30 '14 at 16:02
  • heart and Brain could be the very good. – Tom Sep 30 '14 at 16:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.