# Speak about / of  / on (a topic)



## ThomasK

Can you use both prepositions (or cases) in your language? And can you perhaps explain that preposition by referring to a 'localising' preposition (situating in space) or by comparing to semantically different kinds of verbs taking the same preposition? 

Dutch: *spreken over* (most common)/ *van* (not so common but possible, more like mentioning) -- quite parallel with _about _and _of_ in English

- _*over*_ has to do with the English _over_, high in the air, (from) above
- _*van*_, like of, reminds me of *partitive case*, as this combination refers to touching upon a subject, does not suggest/ imply dealing with it thoroughly - only a part of it... Just like _nemen van, eten van_, ...[take/ eat a part of ...] (It can also mean _from_ (fall from, _vallen van_), but I don't see a link with that here)

_(Background: while teaching Dutch to foreigners, I noticed a difficulty with prepositions. I wonder(ed) whether there could be some underlying logic for the use of different prepositions. But I simply focus on speaking here.)_


----------



## DearPrudence

In French:
*"parler de"* (that’d be "of", or "van", not "about")


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek:
«Μιλάω/μιλάμε γιά*...»
mi'lao [1st person sing.]/mi'lame [1st person pl.] ʝa
lit. 
[I/we] speak for

*«Γιά» (ʝa), preposition; deriving from the ancient «διὰ» (dīă)-->_through, for, by_, which in Medieval times due to palatization it was pronounced  «δʝιὰ», eventually «δγιά»


----------



## ThomasK

No, you're right, but can't you say : _un texte sur (au sujet de)_ ? I know it is not speaking but it refers to the same meaning, doesn't it?


----------



## ThomasK

Do you have other verbs taking the same preposition, Apmoy? Could you see/ feel any parallel with an English verb V+ for ? 

I also thought: does it imply dealing with it thoroughly (_through_)? For a second I thought there might be a parallel with _of_, but there is nothing specifically partitive about this _dia_, is there?


----------



## Rallino

In Turkish:

1. ... _hakkında_ konuşmak = To speak _about_ ...
2. ..._-den_ _(Ablative)_ konuşmak = To speak _from_ ...
3. ... _üzerine_ konuşmak = To speak _over to_ ...
4. ... _üzerinde_ konuşmak = To speak _over _...
5. ... _üstünde_ konuşmak = To speak _on_ ...

6. ... _üstüne_ konuşmak = To speak _onto_ ...



First 5 are totally equal. 6th one is a bit different. It means, something happened, and as a consequence we are talking about it. (It is quite similar to the first 5 phrases, but doesn't convey the idea as directly.)


----------



## DearPrudence

ThomasK said:


> No, you're right, but can't you say : _un texte sur (au sujet de)_ ? I know it is not speaking but it refers to the same meaning, doesn't it?


Yes, you're right, we say "*un texte (qui est) sur [un sujet]*" (literally "on a topic")


----------



## jazyk

In Portuguese with literal translations: falar de (of), em (in), sobre (about), acerca de (also about).


----------



## bibax

In Czech we use the preposition *o* with locative.

mluviti *o* ... (loc.) = sprechen *über/von* ... (to speak about);

The preposition *o* with accusative expresses a goal, purpose, direction:

bojovati *o* ... (acc.) = kämpfen *um* ... (to fight over, to battle for);

The etymology (_o_ is contracted _*ambhi_) was already discussed in your older thread "(A)round".


----------



## sakvaka

In *Finnish* we use the elative case (from).

_Mistä te keskustelitte? —Me juttelimme elämästä ja kuolemasta._


----------



## Tamar

Hebrew uses "on"
לדבר על [ledaber al] "to speak on"



> (Background: while teaching Dutch to foreigners, I noticed a difficulty with prepositions. I wonder(ed) whether there could be some underlying logic for the use of different prepositions. But I simply focus on speaking here.)


As someone who sees other people learning languages, and as a learner myself, it always seems to me that prepositions are one the most difficult thing to learn. You cannot predict which verb is gonna have which preposition so there doesn't seem to be much sense in it.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, Tamar, I did not mean to say there is too much logic in it, but some there is, I think: it is not a coincidence that I read 'on' (_über, over, o, sobre, ...)_ so often above, is it? 
I would not consider it a goal personally; I think of dominating rather ('over', higher), having a survey... 
The German 'um' in my view refers to a centre. We can also say: 'het gaat om ...' (it goes around ..' in a text, which implies that that is the goal, the centre, the heart, whereas 'it gaat over' refers to the topic. 


The Finnish elative: not of, then. Could you find some kind of 'logic' for that? _(Please don't misunderstand, I did not mean that it is a weird logic, I am just asking if you see some kind of logic - maybe I am wrong as well...)_


----------



## Orlin

bibax said:


> In Czech we use the preposition *o* with locative.
> 
> mluviti *o* ... (loc.) = sprechen *über/von* ... (to speak about);
> 
> The preposition *o* with accusative expresses a goal, purpose, direction:
> 
> bojovati *o* ... (acc.) = kämpfen *um* ... (to fight over, to battle for);
> 
> The etymology (_o_ is contracted _*ambhi_) was already discussed in your older thread "(A)round".


I think all Slavic languages except Bulgarian and Macedonian use *o +* *locative *(called prepositional in some of them) in this case.
Bulgarian uses *за* ("for") or much more rarely *относно* ("referring to"). No noun declension.


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> The Finnish elative: not of, then. Could you find some kind of 'logic' for that? _(Please don't misunderstand, I did not mean that it is a weird logic, I am just asking if you see some kind of logic - maybe I am wrong as well...)_



Well, we don't have a direct equivalent for the preposition _of_, apart from the genitive (but that's the wrong _of_). And when you talk about something, you really 'draw something from the sack of mental ideas' and hence have to use the elative. Something like that.


----------



## ThomasK

sakvaka said:


> Well, we don't have a direct equivalent for the preposition _of_, apart from the genitive (but that's the wrong _of_). And when you talk about something, you really 'draw something from the sack of mental ideas' and hence have to use the elative. Something like that.


 
Great, interesting view on that issue.


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> Do you have other verbs taking the same preposition, Apmoy?


Yes, e.g «ψάχνω γιά» ('psaxno ʝa)-->_searching/looking for_ (and dozens more).


ThomasK said:


> Could you see/ feel any parallel with an English verb V+ for ?


The difference between the two language families is that an Englishman looks for the proper preposition that follows the verb in order to alter its meaning, while a Greek chooses which prefix would change the meaning of the verb. What I mean is that the parallel between English (and probably Dutch too) and Greek would be: 
English--> V + preposition
Greek--> prefix [I chose a colour similar to red for the prefix sometimes is a preposition] + V
examples:
1/ Eng: Move
Gre: Κινώ
Eng: Move over 
Gre: Μετακινώ
2/ Eng: Look
Gre: Βλέπω
Eng: Look over
Gre: Επιβλέπω


ThomasK said:


> I also thought: does it imply dealing with it thoroughly (_through_)? For a second I thought there might be a parallel with _of_, but there is nothing specifically partitive about this _dia_, is there?


I think that in order to deal with it thoroughly (_through_) I should have used the learned (katharevousa) preposition «περί» (pe'ri)-->_about, in regard to_, taken from the ancient language (pĕ'rĭ) with the same meaning (PIE base *peri-, _through, during_, cognate with Eng. _for_, Lat. _per_, Span. _por_), Alb. _për_). «Περί» has the meaning of examining something thoroughly (looking at it from every possible angle, from all sides)


----------



## francisgranada

sakvaka said:


> In *Finnish* we use the elative case (from).
> 
> _Mistä te keskustelitte? —Me juttelimme elämästä ja kuolemasta._


 
In *Hungarian* the "delative" case is used instead _(-ról/-ről _from)
(not "from inside", but rather as in "from the table")

_Mir*ől*?_ (about what?)
_*Ról*am _(about me)


----------



## ThomasK

Interesting, reminds me of Finnish elative. Your explanation seems different though from Sakvaka's (see #14). Or do you recognize something? What do you associate with that rol, literally ?


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> Interesting, reminds me of Finnish elative. Your explanation seems different though from Sakvaka's (see #14). Or do you recognize something? What do you associate with that rol, literally ?


 
First of all, the Indoeuropean _cases_ and _prepositions_ (originally bound to particular cases) cannot be compared _directly_ with the Uralic (or Finno-Ugric) so called "cases", that are rather agglutinated _postpositions_ (etymologically adverbs etc...) than abstract grammatical case endings. 

So your original question (_speak about/of/on ...)_ cannot be _directly_ applied and/or answered from the Uralic point of view. But I'm afraid, neighter from the point of view of the IE languages, because e.g. the equivalent of the English _about_ is _de, alrededor, sobre, cerca_ ... in Spanish, depending on the context. 

*********************************
Returning to the Hungarian, the logic is equal to the Finnish _elative_, but in this case in Hungarian we use _delative_ )). As I do not speak Finnish, I'll try to explain only the Hungarian, comparing with the English:

The _elative_ in Hungarian corresponds to the English "from" as follows:
_Kimentem a házból_ - I went out _from_ the house (before I was inside the house ...)

The _delative_ in Hungarian corresponds to the English "from" as follows:
_Lementem a házról_ - I went down _from_ the house (before I was on the top of the house ...)

The _delative_ in Hungarian corresponds to the English "about" in case of your question:
_Beszéltem a házról -_ I spoke about the house.
_Olvastam a házról_ - I read _about _the house.
_Róla*m* beszélt -_ He/she spoke about *me*.
_Róla*d* beszélt -_ He/she spoke about you (*thee*).

********************************* 
I think, both in the Indoeuropean and the Uralic languages, the "solution" for expressions like "to speak about" is _secondary_, i.e. some concrete existing construction/case/preposition/suffix/postposition ... is beeing used _(o, za, um, über, von, about, from, of, de, sobre, em, acerca, di, circa, 'elative'__, 'delative', 'genitive', 'locative' ... etc) _

_*********************************_


sakvaka said:


> ... And when you talk about something, you really 'draw something from the sack of mental ideas' and hence have to use the elative...


It's valid also for the Hungarian with a little modification:

_... And when you talk about something, you really 'draw something from the table of mental ideas' and hence have to use the delative ... _


----------



## ThomasK

Great information, thanks. You know, I am not searching for a common grammatical basis, but for a common conceptual basis or something of the kind. (I have just discovered functional grammar and I wonder whether that could help me in such respects, regarding the link between speaking and its topic...) But I need to give it more thought, I suppose. The other issue is, as I said: maybe that could help learners in some way - but it might just as well not... ;-) . 

Thanks again !


----------



## sakvaka

The Hungarian delative looks like the Finnish ablative, with the distinction that we can't use it as freely as you ('get down from the house' requires an additional phrase, 'the roof of').

_Poistuin valtatieltä._ I left the highway.
_Poika laskeutui alas pöydältä._ The boy got down from the table.
_Isäni kuoli putoamalla talon katolta._ My father died by falling down from (the roof of) a house.
_Yksisarvinen on kotoisin Mont Blanc -vuoren huipulta._ The unicorn is originally from the summit of Mont Blanc.


----------



## bibax

Latin:

Similarly like in Hungarian (delative) the Latin preposition *de* (+ ablative) has many meanings in various contexts (mostly equivalent to English *from* or *of*).

1. *de* muris = (to fall) _from_ (the top of) the walls/ramparts; --- location
2. (homo) *de* plebe = (a man) _from/of_ the plebs; --- origin
3. *de* ferro = (made) _from/of_ iron; --- material
4. (loqui/dicere, legere, scribere, cogitare) *de* aliqua re = (to speak, to read, to write, to think) _about_ something, e.g. *de* mortuis = _about_ the dead; *De* revolutionibus orbium coelestium (Coper.) = _on_ the revolutions ...;
....
....


----------



## francisgranada

In Hungarian, besides the typical -ról/-ről, also the adverb (postposition) _*felől*_ can be used in some cases. E.g.:

még nem döntöttem _*felőle*_ - I have not yet decided _about_ it
biztos vagyok _*felőle*_ - I am sure _about_ it 
kérdezősködik *felőle* - he/she asks/has questions _about_ him/her/it

The generic meaning of _felől_ is "from the direction/side of"


----------



## ThomasK

This is quite interesting:
- _from (the roof of) the house_ is normally a matter of metonymy; it seems necessary in Finnish to point out the precise part then (the summit, the roof), whereas it seems quite natural to move from a part to the whole thing (like _airhead_: we refer to that person's head but we mean the whole person) - this is a side aspect, I guess, but quite interesting as such
- Lat. _de_ : I now realize it has more meanings, thanks, though I think I can say they have some common basic meaning, can't I? 
- Hungarian _felöle_ : from or on the side of, I wonder; I mean: coul d you illustrate the literal/ 'locational' meaning (if available)? Something like 'coming from [a town]'?


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ...Hungarian _felöle_ : from or on the side of, I wonder; I mean: coul d you illustrate the literal/ 'locational' meaning (if available)? Something like 'coming from [a town]'?
> -


 
_felőle_ : from the direction (side) of, not on the side. 

Some examples to undestand better the "Hungarian logic" :
(_ház_ = house) 

_a ház*ra* mászott_ - he climbed on/up the house [eg. on the roof] 
_a ház*ról* esett le_ - he fell down from the house [e.g. from the roof]
(of course, we can say also _"a háztető*ről*"_ - from the roof of the house, or _"a kémény*ről*"_ - from the chimney etc., if this is the case)

_a ház*ba* megy_ - he is going to the house [he intends to enter or he is entering] 
_a ház*ból* jön_ - he is coming from the house [before he was inside the house]

_a ház *felé* megy_ - he is going towads the house [we don't know if he will also reach the house] 
_a ház *felől* jön_ - he is coming from (_the direction of_) the house [we don't know if he was in the house or not]
(in the same way: "_a város *felől*_" - from the town, _"észak *felől*_" - from North ...)

Only for completness, "from the direction of" can be said using the word _irány (_direction_) _also in Hungarian_:_
_a ház irányából jön -_ he is coming from the direction of the house [exactly the same as in English]


The above logic is valid for all the "locative" cases as under, beneath, to ... etc. (or more precisely, there are "in-to-from" triplets, but it would be an other topic ...)


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks a lot, Francis: interesting to read about the distinctions. So I understand you can use both from words (probably because they refer to a similar meaning) - but not something like 'on'. I guess the _felöl_ meaning can't be expressed using one specific pronoun in English. Thanks a lot !

_The locative cases: you are referring to this issue of antonyms being based on one another (adding _öl_), I guess. But indeed, we'd better not start a thread in this thread. _


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ... I guess the _felöl_ meaning can't be expressed using one specific pronoun in English ...


 
Yes, this is the case. We translate it simply with _from_, which has a more generic meaning. If we have to be more precise, we have to "circumscribe" the situation using e.g. "from the direction of". Let's suppose we can see a man and a house:

1. _a ház irányából jön __(litterally _he is coming from the direction of the house). Both the man and the house appear to us in the same direction (e.g. +30 degees from North ). 

2. _a ház felől jön __(_he is coming from the house). The house and the man may appear to us also in (slightly) different directions, because the man is walking on the road which leads from the house to us. 

3. _a házból jön __(_he is coming from the house). Let's say we have seen the man standing at the door of that house 30 minutes ago. So from whatever direction he comes, we know, that the man has been in the house before. 

4. _a házról jön __(_he is coming from the house). Let's say we have seen the man standing on the roof of that house 30 minutes ago. So from whatever direction he comes, we know, that the man has been on the roof of the house before. (This example is not very typical though .... )

Now, with the English preposition _from_ we cannot make difference between 2, 3 and 4. Using "from the direction of" we cannot distinguish 1 and 2.


----------



## ThomasK

Now I understand. You are indeed making distinctions that we have never even thought of! Thanks a lot. --- Last question: would you say your _of/from_ is (feels) similar to the English _speak of_? I mean: what do you associate with the expression speak of/from in Hungarian ? Is it about what sakvaka suggested regarding Finnish (see #14) ?


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ... Last question: would you say your _of/from_ is (feels) similar to the English _speak of_? I mean: what do you associate with the expression speak of/from in Hungarian ?


 
Yes, in case of _ról/ről_, it "feels" similar to the English _from_, or perphaps a bit more precisely, _from above _or Spanish _de sobre_ .... 

In case of _felől_ the association is rather approximately _from the side of_, _de cerca, de la parte de_ ... 



> ... Is it about what sakvaka suggested regarding Finnish (see #14) ?


 
Not exactly, because Sakvaka's poetic  explanation would rather correspond to _from inside_, _de dentro_... (if I do understand him correctly).


----------



## bibax

Czech has also a preposition meaning _"from the (top) surface of"_, equivalent to Latin *de* and Hungarian *de*lative.

However this Czech preposition doesn't mean _about_ in any case.

Examples in Czech and Hungarian (Latin would be a hard nut for me):

A táncosnő leesett az emelvény*ről* (_or_ pódium*ról*). = Tanečnice spadla *s* podia.

_The (female) dancer fell from the podium._
It means she fell from the top surface of the podium, NOT from the inside of the podium, both in Hungarian and Czech.

Sztálin beszélt az emelvény*ről* (_or_ tribün*ről*). = Stalin mluvil *s* tribuny.

In Czech it means _Stalin spoke from (the top surface of) the tribune_.

However in Hungarian it could mean _Stalin spoke about the tribune_.

How Hungarian distinguishes:

to speak about the table x to speak from (the top of) the table (i.e. standing on the table)?

I should translate both phrases: beszélni az asztal*ról*

For example: Az asztalokról beszélni tilos!

_Speaking from the tables prohibited! Speaking about the tables prohibited!_


----------



## vianie

bibax said:


> Tanečnice spadla *s* podia.
> Stalin mluvil *s* tribuny.


 
I'm sorry, is that *s* instead of *z *perfectly correct in nowadays Czech? - Thank you.


----------



## bibax

Of course, it's perfectly correct. However the young Czechs don't use it often, I am afraid.


----------



## francisgranada

bibax said:


> .... A táncosnő leesett az emelvény*ről* (_or_ pódium*ról*). = Tanečnice spadla *s* podia... It means she fell from the top surface of the podium, NOT from the inside of the podium, both in Hungarian and Czech.


 
How do you say in Czech "A táncosnő kiesett az emelvény*ből*" ? (she fell from the inside of the podium). Would you use the preposition "*z*" (vypadla z podia) ?



> Sztálin beszélt az emelvény*ről* (_or_ tribün*ről*). = Stalin mluvil *s* tribuny.
> In Czech it means _Stalin spoke from (the top surface of) the tribune_. However in Hungarian it could mean _Stalin spoke about the tribune_.... How Hungarian distinguishes ....


 
If Joseph Vissarionovich Jughashvili  spoke about the podium from the podium, we should say:

Sztálin a pódium*ról *a pódium*ról *beszélt.

In you example, it cannot be distinguished because the same suffix (delative) is used. Though, stylistically, it's surely better to say _Sztálin a pódium*on* (állva) a pódiumról beszélt._ [... (standing) on the podium...]


----------



## bibax

"A táncosnő *le*esett az emelvény*ről*" = Tanečnice *s*padla *s* podia.
"A táncosnő *ki*esett az emelvény*ből*" = Tanečnice *vy*padla *z* podia.

The problem is that both prepositions are pronounced [s] before a voiceless consonant (e.g. *p*odia) and [z] before a voiced consonant (e.g. s/z *v*ěže = from the tower).


----------



## francisgranada

bibax said:


> "A táncosnő *le*esett az emelvény*ről*" = Tanečnice *s*padla *s* podia.
> "A táncosnő *ki*esett az emelvény*ből*" = Tanečnice *vy*padla *z* podia...


 
I didn't know (like Vianie) that this distinction in the Czech language still exists. By the way, the prepositions _s/z/se/ze/iz_ ..., their usage and orthography in the Slavic languages could be an interesting topic (not in _this_ thread, of course ...)


----------



## ThomasK

Gents, do you have different prepositions (...) referring to from and from the inside in both languages? That is an interesting distinction. And how would you explain that meaning in connection with speaking, Bibax ? (Thanks)


----------



## tyhryk

Ukrainians can say "to speak about" or "to speak on the theme of", for example, говорити/розмовляти про погоду (to speak about the weather) or говорити/розмовляти на тему погоди (to speak on the weather's theme).


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, but could you expand on the precise spatial meaning of про or of на ?


----------



## francisgranada

tyhryk said:


> Ukrainians can say "to speak about" or "to speak on the theme of", for example, говорити/розмовляти про погоду (to speak about the weather) or говорити/розмовляти на тему погоди (to speak on the weather's theme).


 
I think the construction _говорити/розмовляти на тему погоди_ is a little bit different from the original question (though also very interesting, of course) because here _говорити_ and _розмовляти_ have the sense of "to discuss" (rather than "to speak" directly), and this can eventually lead to different prepositions/suffixes/cases (and even to the usage of other verbs) in different languages. 



ThomasK said:


> ... could you expand on the precise spatial meaning of про or of на ?


 
The preposition _на_ [na] corresponds (almost) exactly to the English "on" (as in "on the table")

The Slavic preposition _про_ [pro] is of IE origin and it corresponds approximately to the English "for" (Latin _pro_). But this preposition may have slightly different meanings in various Slavic languages, so let's wait for the answer of _Tyhryk_ (or for the explanation of a native Ukranian speaker....)


----------



## ThomasK

Quite an interesting note, Sr FG: it could be different. We do say _nadenken over_ as well (reflect on); so I think it will be the same, as long as it still a verb of saying/ thinking (we can also say: _stilstaan bij,_ stand still alongside something (at ?), which can mean about the same but is quite a different expression, based on quite a different metaphor.


----------



## Orlin

tyhryk said:


> Ukrainians can say "to speak about" or "to speak on the theme of", for example, говорити/розмовляти про погоду (to speak about the weather) or говорити/розмовляти на тему погоди (to speak on the weather's theme).


As far as I know, the construction with _про + Acc._ is also possible in Russian as an alternative of _о + Prepositional_. Unfortunately I don't remember the nuances in meaning they have.


----------



## ThomasK

I can't seem to find an explanation of any - if any - spatial meaning of _про _or _o._ Can somene enlighten me on that ?


----------



## Orlin

ThomasK said:


> I can't seem to find an explanation of any - if any - spatial meaning of _про _or _o._ Can somene enlighten me on that ?


See this thread.


----------



## ThomasK

thanks, but too bad:I don't understand that Slavic, I am sorry.


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> I can't seem to find an explanation of any - if any - spatial meaning of _про _or _o._ Can somene enlighten me on that ?


 
The original spatial meaning of "o" was something like "around". It can be uderstood from the words where this "o" appears as a prefix (e.g. Slovak: *o*kolo [around, kolo=wheel], *o*písať, *o*pásať, ...). 

The preposition "pro" when used as prefix, has sometimes the meaning of "through, across, over ..." (e.g. in Czech: *pro*niknout, *pro*padnout, *pro*pojit...). But I don't know wheather it's the original meaning of this preposition or rather a later evolution ...


----------



## ThomasK

That is interesting: our _over_ might be _over _(_on_ but with a slight moving curve)!


----------



## tyhryk

ThomasK said:


> Thanks, but could you expand on the precise spatial meaning of про or of на ?


Well, if You would like to name some places, having spatial meaning, You should write on=на:
I saw you on the glade yesterday - Я бачила тебе вчора на галявині.
on the street - на вулиці
on the road - на шляху, на дорозі

But when You'd like to speak about these places, You'd write about=про:
I speak about this beautiful glade - Я розповідаю про цю чудову галявину.
about your street - про твою вулицю
about the road to Kyiv - про дорогу до Києва


----------



## tyhryk

francisgranada said:


> I think the construction _говорити/розмовляти на тему погоди_ is a little bit different from the original question (though also very interesting, of course) because here _говорити_ and _розмовляти_ have the sense of "to discuss" (rather than "to speak" directly), and this can eventually lead to different prepositions/suffixes/cases (and even to the usage of other verbs) in different languages.


 Говорити and розмовляти always mean "to speak".
And the verb "to discuss" translates into Ukrainian as обговорювати or дискутувати. 



francisgranada said:


> The preposition _на_ [na] corresponds (almost) exactly to the English "on" (as in "on the table")


Yes, You're right on the 100%! 



francisgranada said:


> The Slavic preposition _про_ [pro] is of IE origin and it corresponds approximately to the English "for" (Latin _pro_). But this preposition may have slightly different meanings in various Slavic languages, so let's wait for the answer of _Tyhryk_ (or for the explanation of a native Ukranian speaker....)


Ukrainian про corresponds English "about", but "for" translates для.


----------



## Orlin

ThomasK said:


> thanks, but too bad:I don't understand that Slavic, I am sorry.


The main in the thread that I cited is that these 2 prepositions are almost always interchangeable in Russian.


----------



## mataripis

speak= magsalita/ about= tungkol  ,   speak about= magsalita tungkol


----------



## ThomasK

Yes, but in what contexts can you use _tungkol_ too? What is the literal meaning?


----------



## Istriano

In Portuguese, we can say

1. falar de  (lit. OF)
2. falar em  (lit. ON)
3. falar sobre  (lit. ABOUT)


_Não quero falar disso/nisso/sobre isso._
I don't want to talk about this.


----------



## ThomasK

Great, but isn't one more common than the other? Doesn't really matter, except of course if the _on/about_-version were more important/ common, as that would confirm my wishful thinking! ;-)

However, the _*sobre*_ reminds me of 'sur' in French, and of above, or maybe over in English, and that again refers to the literal meaning of : above, higher than, etc. Isn't that the literal meaning? 

I think that basically one who speaks about must have some kind of view over things, or s/he can't speak about it. Don't you think? Some people who are really in (amidst) trouble, can't even find words for that - and when they can, they are feeling better already... Just wondering!


----------



## ThomasK

In the meantime I found out that about meant ""on the outside of". So something like 'concerning', I think. So basically it is not the same as 'on'.

As for Portuguese: is 'sobre' not something like _above, _in the original meaning, or even nowadays?


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> As for Portuguese: is 'sobre' not something like <em>above, </em>in the original meaning, or even nowadays?


The Port. and Sp. _sobre _comes from the Latin "super". The English translation can be typically above/upon/on/over ... depending on the context.


----------



## ThomasK

Over three years later, I have been thinking that there is 
- often this idea of 'over' (like 'sobre', 'over')
- something like 'of' or 'from' 
- sometimes maybe 'through'
- I also think I can see something like 'around'
And I notice that certain languages use a prefix instead of a preposition, which we can do in Dutch (and in German): _*bespreken *_and _spreken _over are very much the same, but this mechanism does not work perfectly for other be- verbs...

I'd be interested to hear how Asian languages like Japanese (Sr810) express that relation...


----------



## OneStroke

Chinese: No preposition


----------



## ThomasK

i suppose you do not have that category. Does that imply that verbs are supposed to suggest any movement (lit. or fig.) on their own? Like 'ot go' implying 'to' and 'to come' 'from' --- but then how about 'to come to'? Is all directionality suggested by the verb itself?


----------



## 涼宮

If I understood your question well, ThomasK, you're asking whether a preposition or case can have different meanings depending on the verb. 

Japanese doesn't have prepositions or cases but it has particles which work like postpositions. 

A very simple example, the accusative particle を _wo_, it usually marks the direct object however, when it is used with verbs of movements like run/walk/fly it can take the concepts of 'through' or 'along'.

廊下を走る _rouka wo hashiru _to run in the hall. 

空を飛ぶ _sora wo tobu_ fly in the air.

Despite being intransitive verbs they can take the accusative particle.


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> In the meantime I found out that about meant ""on the outside of". So something like 'concerning', I think. So basically it is not the same as 'on'.



"around" is an archaic meaning of _about_. There still seem to be traces of this meaning in expressions like _The ship came about_ = "The ship changed course".

But in the modern language, _to talk around something_ means to avoid talking about that something, i.e. to say things that almost touch on a given topic but don't quite do so.


----------



## OneStroke

ThomasK said:


> i suppose you do not have that category. Does that imply that verbs are supposed to suggest any movement (lit. or fig.) on their own? Like 'ot go' implying 'to' and 'to come' 'from' --- but then how about 'to come to'? Is all directionality suggested by the verb itself?



We do have prepositions in Chinese; we just tend to have verbs that can take large variety of direct objects. That includes words for say/speak/talk like 說 shuō , 講 jiǎng, etc.

Here's a random example I found on Google: 你可以講一下銷售，講一下產品。Nǐ kěyǐ jiǎng yixià xiāoshòu, jiǎng yixià chǎnpǐn. 

Word-for-word: You can talk a bit sales, talk a bit products.

However, we do have prepositions in some cases. I'll use 'come from' as an example. We say 來自 lái zì, in which 來 lái is the verb 'come, and 自 zì is the preposition 'from'. There no preposition required for coming to somewhere (來 lái) or going to somewhere (去 qù), but we do need a preposition for, say, 'walk to' 走到 zǒu dào, where 到 dào is a preposition.


----------



## 810senior

In Japanese we say like について話す(ni tsuite hanasu, to speak *about* something)
e.g. 今日はお茶の種類*について*お話しましょう。(I'd like to speak *about *types of the tea today)

Actually we don't have something like preposition. について_nitsuite _is combined with proposition に_ni _and ついて_tsuite _derived from a verb つく_tsuku _meaning be concerned with.
The whole meaning is as to, referring to, concerning, and so forth.


----------



## kloie

Serbian 
O čemu govoriš?-what are you talking about
O is in the dative case preposition


----------



## ThomasK

Dative: does that imply speaking to (that is what I associate with dative)???


----------



## kloie

Yes and if you want To say To talk with,to....-pričati s... and the s. Is in the instrumental case.


----------

