# Throwing thoughts ?



## ThomasK

I needed a title, and could not find a better one. I am mainly interested in the *translation* of the verbs below, and how they *combine with their object*: do they have a case, or a preposition (or ...)? 

a - _*vragen (naar),*_ to ask (for) [non-obligatory preposition] 
b - *hopen (op),* to hope (for) [id.]
c -_ *nadenken over*_, to think (reflect !) about 
d - _*denken aan*_, to think of 

Extra Q: can those prepositions have *a literal meaning* as well? With us they can/ have: _naar_ = to, op = on, _over_ = over, _aan_ = (maybe something like) (attached) to [_het hangt/ ik hang het aan de muur_: it hangs/ I hang it on the wall] g.


----------



## sakvaka

In *Finnish* they all get a direct object, the case of which is usually _partitive_ with these verbs. This is because thinking and hoping are usually active, continuous actions that cannot be completed.


----------



## ThomasK

sakvaka said:


> In *Finnish* (...) thinking and hoping are usually active, continuous actions that cannot be completed.


 
Oh, do I love Finnish! I mean: do I understand you right if I think they are morphologically considered continous actions (implying that there is no end to it)? On the other hand: can't you lose hope, stop thinking of something, ... ? But I suppose you mean that they all take some time. 

But could you give me the Finnish verbs for all four? (I also wonder whether c and d have a different stem in Finnish: can _*miettä*_ be used in both? And could ajatella be linked with _ajaa_, riding, or what precisely does the _*aja(a)*_ root refer to? The point is: if _ajaa_ were linked with _ajatella_, then that would refer to movement, even direction. _(ONLY IF ... ! ;-))_


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> Oh, do I love Finnish! I mean: do I understand you right if I think they are morphologically considered continous actions (implying that there is no end to it)? [--] But I suppose you mean that they all take some time.


 
That's true. However, I just reconsidered my reply and found out that there can in fact be sentences where "to think" is used with a total object (_To remind you, "total objects" indicate a complete, specified action or an entire amount, and "partial objects" refer to feelings, long-term or ongoing activities, partial amounts etc._):

_Älä häiritse! Ajattelen tämän ajatuksen ensin._ 
Do not disturb! I am going to think over this thought first.

"Think over"is more complete than "think about", you see.



> But could you give me the Finnish verbs for all four? (I also wonder whether c and d have a different stem in Finnish: can _*miettiä*_ be used in both? And could ajatella be linked with _ajaa_, riding, or what precisely does the _*aja(a)*_ root refer to? The point is: if _ajaa_ were linked with _ajatella_, then that would refer to movement, even direction. _(ONLY IF ... ! ;-))_


 
a) pyytää
b) toivoa
c) ajatella, miettiä
d) ajatella, miettiä, pohtia

I'd say "miettiä" is something deeper and more concentrated in comparison with "ajatella" and takes causes and results in consideration, too. For "ajatella", it is enough to just be aware of the situation. And "pohtia" is even more concentrated. 

However, these verbs are often mixed up. (_The distinction isn't very clear to me, either._)

Etymologically, _ajatella_ is related to _ajaa_ (drive, or actually: chase). The original root is possibly Indo-European languages, cf. Latin _agere_. Therefore, _ajatella_ has originally meant "to chase thoughts". (Source: Häkkinen, Kaisa (2004): Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja)


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> I needed a title, and could not find a better one. I am mainly interested in the *translation* of the verbs below, and how they *combine with their object*: do they have a case, or a preposition (or ...)?
> 
> a - _*vragen (naar),*_ to ask (for) [non-obligatory preposition]
> b - *hopen (op),* to hope (for) [id.]
> c -_ *nadenken over*_, to think (reflect !) about
> d - _*denken aan*_, to think of


In Greek:
a-to ask (for) [non-obligatory preposition]: «Ρωτώ/Ρωτάω γιά να..» (ro'to contracted/ro'tao uncontracted ʝa na...) lit. _I ask/am asking for to.._ e.g. «Ρωτώ/Ρωτάω γιά να μάθω» (ro'to contracted/ro'tao uncontracted ʝa na 'maθo-->_I ask/am asking for to learn_
or simply  
«Ρωτώ/Ρωτάω να...», _I ask/am asking to_; e.g. «Ρωτώ/Ρωτάω να ξεκαθαρίσω» (ro'to contracted/ro'tao uncontracted na ksekaθa'riso-->_I ask/am asking to clear this_
b-to hope (for) [id.]: «Ελπίζω να...» (el'pizo na...) lit. _I hope/am hoping to..._; e.g. «Ελπίζω να τα ξαναπούμε» (el'pizo na ta ksana'pume)-->_I hope/am hoping we to talk/meet again_
c-to think (reflect !) about: «Σκέπτομαι» ('skeptome) or in vernacular «σκέφτομαι» ('skeftome); no preposition. It usually takes a direct object; e.g. «σκέπτομαι το μέλλον μου» ('skeptome to 'melon mu)-->_I think/am thinking my future_
d-to think of: idem



ThomasK said:


> Extra Q: can those prepositions have *a literal meaning* as well? With us they can/ have: _naar_ = to, op = on, _over_ = over, _aan_ = (maybe something like) (attached) to [_het hangt/ ik hang het aan de muur_: it hangs/ I hang it on the wall] g.


As you can see, the only preposition used is «γιά» (ʝa) translated into English as _for_ deriving from the Classical one «διὰ» (di'a)-->_for_ as prefix _through, throughout_ which in Hellenistic times, due to the phenomenon of synizesis, «διὰ»-->«δʝὰ»-->«δʝὰ»


----------



## Tjahzi

I'm sorry, but the possibilities to more or less alter these verbs with the addition of prepositions or adverbs are so substantial that it's hard come up with single translations. Could you please create a few example sentences?


----------



## ThomasK

@ Sweden ;-) : I have added some easy sentences 
a - _*vragen (naar),*_ to ask (for) [non-obligatory preposition] 
They asked for my home address. 

b - *hopen (op),* to hope (for) [id.]
They hoped for better luck later on. 

c -_ *nadenken over*_, to think (reflect !) about 
They said they did not like the idea, but they promised to think about it. 

d - _*denken aan*_, to think of 
Drinks? Good Lord, I have not thought of that! I'll get back to the store and get it.


----------



## ThomasK

@Apmoy: thanks again !

_*Gia*_ is a locative pronoun, isn't it? Or no, I am mixing up with _eis_ (towards). Or is it locative indeed? 
Could the _*na*_ be locative historically? I once learnt that the English _*to*_ (in front of inf.) was a locative/ directional pronoun. 
As for 'thinking about/of': 


- is 'skept...' something like judging originally (as in 'sceptical')? That might explain the object.
- Could you imagine another verb suggesting the idea of re-flecting, looking [bowing] back on ? 
- as for 'think of': would you perhaps have a nous-verb suggesting a direction ? _(I am just exploring possible tracks, and I may very well be quite, quite wrong !)_


----------



## ThomasK

@Sakvaka: thanks for all the valuable information, quite impressive !


----------



## Rallino

Heya!

Turkish:



ThomasK said:


> a - _*vragen (naar),*_ to ask (for) [non-obligatory preposition]
> They asked for my home address.



Bana ev adresimi sordular.

sordular - they asked

adresim - my address
adresimi - my address _(accusative)_

So, to ask for X = X _(Accusative)_ sormak



> b - *hopen (op),* to hope (for) [id.]
> They hoped for better luck later on.


Errm, we don't really say such a sentence in Turkish, but the verbs _ummak_ and _ümit etmek_ (both mean 'to hope') receive accusative.



> c -_ *nadenken over*_, to think (reflect !) about
> They said they did not like the idea, but they promised to think about it.


Bu fikri beğenmediklerini söylediler; ama bunun hakkında düşüneceklerine dair söz verdiler.

düşünmek = to think

hakkında = about <-- this one requires genitive

bu = this
bunun = of this (genitive, due to 'hakkında')

So, to think about X = X _(genitive)_ hakkında düşünmek



> d - _*denken aan*_, to think of
> Good Lord, I have not thought of my cat ! Where is she?


Tanrım, kedimi hiç düşünmedim ! Nerededir ki?

again, düşünmek = to think

kedim - my cat
kedimi - my cat _(accusative)
_
So, to think of X = X _(Accusative)_ düşünmek.


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> d - _*denken aan*_, to think of
> Good Lord, I have not thought of my cat ! Where is she?



My monolingual dictionary (OALD 7th edition)gives the following interpretations for "think of":
1) consider a person when doing something
2) to have an idea of sth in one's mind (~ someone in particular)
3) to remember something (I can ~ at least three occasions...)
4) consider in a particular way (~ as a home)
5) imagine sth that could happen

Which meaning is the intended one here? "Good Lord, I didn't think of my cat when I made the decision of selling the farmyard" would sound reasonable, but your sentence doesn't make any sense to the Finnish ear. If you meant "remember", I think both Finnish and English would simply say "I clean forgot my cat! Where is she?"


----------



## ThomasK

Good Lord, now this problem ! ;-) We can say it in Dutch, and I think it is an example of meaning #2 or #3, indeed. It does not simply mean that I actively think of that cat, but the cat here is a kind-of metonymy for  something about the cat. I just checked and found this explanation  'keep in mind for attention or consideration', which is what I meant: something like not to remember, but not really forgetting simply. I hope I am not mistaken if I say that "I did not think of that" is common. But in the meantime I changed my cat into drinks, sorry, 'my cat' into 'drinks', that will be come more common, I guess. Yes ?


----------



## ThomasK

Rallino said:


> Heya! Turkish:
> a -*Bana ev adresimi sordular.*
> 
> sordular - they asked
> adresim - my address
> adresimi - my address _(accusative)_
> 
> So, to ask for X = X _(Accusative)_ sormak
> 
> *b -* Errm, we don't really say such a sentence in Turkish, but the verbs _ummak_ and _ümit etmek_ (both mean 'to hope') receive accusative.
> 
> _*c- Bu fikri beğenmediklerini söylediler; ama bunun hakkında düşüneceklerine dair söz verdiler.*_
> 
> düşünmek = to think
> hakkında = about <-- this one requires genitive
> bu = this
> bunun = of this (genitive, due to 'hakkında')
> 
> So, to think about X = X _(genitive)_ hakkında düşünmek
> 
> _*d - Tanrım, kedimi hiç düşünmedim ! Nerededir ki?*_
> 
> again, düşünmek = to think
> kedim - my cat
> kedimi - my cat _(accusative)_
> 
> So, to think of X = X _(Accusative)_ düşünmek.


Thanks, Rallino. Now allow me to ask some questions: 
- do you have prepositions at all (or postpositions)? Or only cases ? What kind of verbs take such prepositions? 
- _to hope for_ : how about _to long for_, or _wait for_? (I know that French does not use a preposition here either)
- what other verbs take a genitive ? 'Of' and genitive look like perfect parallels.


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> I hope I am not mistaken if I say that "I did not think of that" is common. But in the meantime I changed my cat into drinks, sorry, 'my cat' into 'drinks', that will be come more common, I guess. Yes ?



Now I recognise what you mean. We might say _tulla ajatelleeksi_, come to think about sth, in this context. "Come" here means that the situation has already happened as the subject's sense of responsibility or awareness has diminished.

_He kysyivät/pyysivät kotiosoitettani.
He toivoivat vastedes parempaa onnea.
He sanoivat, etteivät pidä ideasta, mutta lupasivat kuitenkin harkita  (preferably not "miettiä") sitä.
Juotavaa? Hyvänen aika, en tullutkaan ajatelleeksi sitä (or: se ei käynyt ollenkaan mielessäni)! Käyn vielä hakemassa pari pulloa kaupasta._


----------



## ThomasK

This is a great addition: indeed, this typical expression "come to (think)" seems to imply location again. 

_(BTW: I may seem to focus too much on this 'locational/directional' hypothesis, but I refer to George Lakoff's_ Living By Metaphors _; that is the book that opened my eyes to lots of metaphors. But to some extent my interest here is also didactic: if there were some underlying logic to be discovered, it might help (my) pupils to remember (in casu) the right prepositions for prepositional objects in Dutch)_


----------



## Rallino

ThomasK said:


> Thanks, Rallino. Now allow me to ask some questions:
> - do you have prepositions at all (or postpositions)? Or only cases ? What kind of verbs take such prepositions?



We do have postpositions. Like: için = for, ile = with etc.
For example: Thomas ile konuşuyorum = I'm talking with Thomas.



> - _to hope for_ : how about _to long for_, or _wait for_? (I know that French does not use a preposition here either)


to wait for, can be X (accusative) beklemek, or X (Nominative) için (for) beklemek.



> - what other verbs take a genitive ? 'Of' and genitive look like perfect parallels.


Verbs can only take nominative(1), accusative(2), dative(3), stative(4) and ablative(5).

1. Bir elma yedim = I ate an apple.
2. Arabayı görüyor musun? = Do you see the car?
3. Thomas'a telefon ettim = I phoned _(to)_ Thomas.
4. Hotelde kaldım. = I stayed in a hotel.
5. Köpeklerden korkuyor = He's afraid of the dogs. (_lit. he's afraid from the dogs.)_

The verbs can't take genitive. If you see a genitive, that is because there is a postposition which requires a genitive.

I hope that helps


----------



## ThomasK

Great information, Rallino. I understand much better now. N, A, D, are quite clear to me, stative is new but I understand, and ablative seems clear too, though it looks different from Latin. 

But genitive is possible with adjectives, isn't it? And: could it be that the nom. construction with beklemek (_X (Nominative) için (for) beklemek_) is like the English 'please' (_I like something = something pleases me_)?


----------



## Rallino

ThomasK said:


> Great information, Rallino. I understand much better now. N, A, D, are quite clear to me, stative is new but I understand, and ablative seems clear too, though it looks different from Latin.
> 
> But genitive is possible with adjectives, isn't it? And: could it be that the nom. construction with beklemek (_X (Nominative) için (for) beklemek_) is like the English 'please' (_I like something = something pleases me_)?



Oh no, sorry for not being clear!

In the construction: _X (Nom.) için beklemek_, X is the object, not the subject of the sentence! As we don't really use the subject pronouns, I omitted it. Perhaps I should have written it with a subject:

Ex: Thomas X için bekliyor = Thomas is waiting for X
You can't reverse it.


About the adjectives:

One thing that's totally different from German, Latin and the Slavic languages, is that in Turkish, adjectives are NEVER declined.

in German, the red Table would be "der rote Tisch", while 'I buy the red table' would be: "Ich kaufe _den roten_ Tisch." But in Turkish this isn't the case.

Red = kırmızı
Table = masa

Red Table = Kırmızı masa

I buy the red table = Kırmızı masayı satın alıyorum.

Note that, the adjective is in nominative. We don't say _*kırmızıyı masayı_ or something.

There is one case where you can decline the adjective: When the adjective is actually a pronoun.

Bu masayı satın alıyorum; maviyi değil.
_(I'm buying this table; not the blue one.)_


----------



## ThomasK

_(Maybe it was my mistake, Rallino. I thought 'beklemek' meant 'to like', that got me going.)_
 I understand _wait_ in Turkish can be used with acc. and _için_ (postposition) + nom. Any other verbs that have these two possibilities? Does _için_ have a literal meaning as well? 

The adjective question was about the object depending on them, such as _from someone_ in _*dependent from* someone_ in English. I thought that the ablative was only used with adj., but maybe I am quite wrong again. However, this kind of distance does seem to be referring to place in some way, just like _from_ (_away from_).


----------



## Tjahzi

Translations listed in ascending order of contextual naturality. All "possible" translations are given. Literal translations are omitted in favor for explanatory comments (feel free to ask for literal translations). General comments after each set of translations.



ThomasK said:


> They asked for my home address.


_De bad om min adress_. (They asked to have my address.)
_De frågade efter min adress_. (They wanted to know what it was.)
_De frågade om min adress._ (They wanted to know it OR they wanted to know something about it.)

_Fråga_ is related to inquiries and as such when asking to receive something, _be_ is more suitable. Since an address is an information, however, it's possible to still use _fråga_. When _asking_ for a cup of tea however, only _be _is possible.



ThomasK said:


> They hoped for better luck later on.


_De hoppades (att de skulle) ha mer tur senare. _They hoped ("that they would"/"to") have more luck later. 
_De hoppades på mer tur senare._ They hoped for more luck later.

This is a _deponent _verb.



ThomasK said:


> They said they did not like the idea, but they promised to think about it.


..._men de lovade att tänka på det. _...but they promised to think about it.
_...men de lovade att tänka över det_. ...but they promised to consider it.
_...men de lovade att fundera på det. _...but they promised to think about/consider/ponder it.

I've interpreted _think about_ as _consider/rethink/continue to think about_.



ThomasK said:


> Drinks? Good Lord, I have not thought of that! I'll get back to the store and get it.


_...det har jag inte tänkt på! _...I didn't think of that!

Most people would probably express this as _I forgot about that! _but this works too, and is obviously closer to the original.

---

For the record, Turkish(/Turkic) "stative" is commonly referred to as _locative_ and is (as far as I know) identical to the locative of Slavic languages and is used to express static locality (as opposed to movement towards or away). As such, it's usage is covered by _ablative_ in Latin and _dative_ in modern German.


----------



## Rallino

Tjahzi said:


> [...]
> 
> For the record, Turkish(/Turkic) "stative" is commonly referred to as _locative_ and is (as far as I know) identical to the locative of Slavic languages and is used to express static locality (as opposed to movement towards or away). As such, it's usage is covered by _ablative_ in Latin and _dative_ in modern German.



Thank you for the info. I wasn't entirely sure about how it's called, as we don't use the terms accusative, dative etc, they're called differently in Turkish. When I was teaching Turkish in Italy, I remember seeing this case being referred to as "stative" in some random book, it seems I got used to it. But now that you've mentioned it,  'Locative' sounds pretty familiar too. Maybe it was just that book, which named it wrongly...


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> @Apmoy: thanks again !
> 
> _*Gia*_ is a locative pronoun, isn't it? Or no, I am mixing up with _eis_ (towards). Or is it locative indeed?
> Could the _*na*_ be locative historically? I once learnt that the English _*to*_ (in front of inf.) was a locative/ directional pronoun.


Thomas I'm afraid the locative case in Greek was absorbed by the dative already in the Homeric language. What you have in mind is the _locative dative _of the Classical language that usually follows the preposition «ἐν» (ĕn)-->_in, into. _«Γιά» is a simple preposition, which derives from the Classical one «διὰ» (dī'ă)-->_for, through _that suffered synizesis and became «γιά» which with nouns in genitive gives the meaning of motion in space or time. 


ThomasK said:


> As for 'thinking about/of':
> - is 'skept...' something like judging originally (as in 'sceptical')? That might explain the object.


Yes, «σκέπτομαι» ('skĕptŏmæ, 'sceptome in modern pronunciation)-->_examine, consider, __think of beforehand, _gives the feminine noun «σκέψις» ('skĕpsīs, 'scepsi in the modern language)-->_viewing, perception by the senses, __examination, speculation, consideration _that ultimately gives the adjective «σκεπτικός» (skĕptī'kŏs, scepti'kos in modern pronunciation)-->_someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs, the hesitative one_ (in English, _skeptic_). From PIE base *spek-, _to spy, observe_.


ThomasK said:


> - Could you imagine another verb suggesting the idea of re-flecting, looking [bowing] back on ?


Sure, «αναπολώ» (anapo'lo) comes in mind, from the Classical «ἀναπολέω/ἀναπολῶ» (ănăpŏ'lĕō [uncontracted]/ănăpŏ'lō [contracted])-->_go over again, repeat, rethink_; compound formed with the joining together of the preposition and prefix «ἀνὰ» (ā'nă)-->_up, on, upon, throughout, again_ + ancient verb (it has not survived in modern Greek in non compound form) «πολέω/πολῶ» (pŏ'lĕō [uncontracted]/pŏ'lō [contracted])-->_revolve,  __turn up the earth with the plough_, _plough_. From PIE base *kʷel-, _to move, turn_, cognate with Eng. _wheel_, Lat. _colere_. «Αναπολώ» init. meant _to turn up the ground __again_, _to plough again_ metaph. _to reflect, recollect, reminisce_. Although in the modern language it also carries the connotation of nostalgy; i.e. "αναπολώ my childhood years"


ThomasK said:


> - as for 'think of': would you perhaps have a nous-verb suggesting a direction ? _(I am just exploring possible tracks, and I may very well be quite, quite wrong !)_


God, your questions are exhausting . I'll come again in a couple of days.


----------



## ThomasK

Please forgive me, Apmoy. But it looks as if our prepositional objects have become or are related with your direct objects depending on kind-of phrasal verbs, like this «αναπολώ». 

_(The starting point is that I have that (crazy ?) hypothesis in mind that there is a directionality involved in those verbs, adn that is why I try to exploit any hint (...) I can trace. But hoping it might lead to a fruitful insight helping language learners !)_


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> would you perhaps have a nous-verb suggesting a direction ? ..But it looks as if our prepositional objects have become or are related with your direct objects depending on kind-of phrasal verbs, like this «αναπολώ».


Here's a couple of verbs that are not exactly nous-related but logos-related (does that count?)
«Συλλογίζομαι» (silo'ʝizome)-->_think, ruminate, ponder, bethink_; from the same Classical one «συλλογίζομαι» (sŭllŏ'gĭzŏmæ), compound formed with the joining together of the preposition and prefix «σὺν» (sun)-->_with, together with_ + «λογίζομαι»* (lŏ'gĭzŏmæ, lo'ʝizome in modern pronunciation)-->_take into account, calculate, consider_. 
«Αναλογίζομαι» (analo'ʝizome)-->_ponder over, reckon up, sum up, reflect_; from the same Classical one «ἀναλογίζομαι» (ănălŏ'gĭzŏmæ), compound formed with the joining together of the preposition and prefix «ἀνὰ» (ă'nă)-->_up, on, upon, throughout, again_ + «λογίζομαι»* (lŏ'gĭzŏmæ, lo'ʝizome in modern pronunciation)-->_take into account, calculate, consider_.
And another one:
«Στοχάζομαι» (sto'xazome)-->init. _aim at, endeavour after_, metaph. _contemplate, think_. From the masculine noun «στόχος» ('stŏxŏs)-->_target, aim_, PIE base *ste-n-gh-, _to sting, acuminous, acute_ (cognate with Eng. _sting_, Ger. _stange_). «Στοχάζομαι» gave the masculine noun «στοχασμός» (stŏxās'mŏs, stoxaz'mos in modern pronunciation)-->_the power of guessing, quantum sufficit, thinking cap_.    

*In the modern language, with «λογίζομαι» we mostly mean _I'm been rated_/c_onsidered_ (the verb is in mediopassive voice); i.e. "λογίζομαι amongst the most capable craftsmen".  


ThomasK said:


> _(The starting point is that I have that (crazy ?) hypothesis in mind that there is a directionality involved in those verbs, adn that is why I try to exploit any hint (...) I can trace. But hoping it might lead to a fruitful insight helping language learners !)_


Not at all crazy, I'm sure this will be a successful endeavour.


ThomasK said:


> Please forgive me, Apmoy...


Ego te absolvo


----------



## ThomasK

_Great again, and thanks for the encouragement, Apmoy_! 

I was too narrowminded in associating thinking with 'nous' only; I suppose I could say that 'logos' is the result of that (word and thought, also at the same time the source ?). 

Interesting is that Συλλογίζομαι does not need a preposition, but integrates the preposition as a prefix - or that is how I'd describe that. That reminded me : we have *'denken over'* but also the transitive *'overdenken'*, which seems to be an application of just the same principle (prep. to prefix). 
Στοχάζομαι then does not need a prefix or preposition, whereas I think we do not have that in Dutch or in English. Or do you know of any English equivalent without prefix or prep. ? _Desire_ is not the right translation, I think, whereas _strife for_ has a prep....


----------

