# to



## ThomasK

I think 'to' mainly refers to direction, but how do you translate it in these contexts, or how do you refer to (kind-of) direction? 

1.  I go to school. They *travel to* Paris. They *leave for*/*to Paris*. *[MOVE myself]
2.  *I send it to you, I throw it at/ *to you*, ... [MOVE something]
2a. I t*urn to *you.[Both physical and mental, I think]
3.  *I hope for *good weather.  *I long for *good weather*. *I* look forward to *good weather. I* think of ... *[fig. MOVE/mental MOVE]
4.  I *force *them *to *go. I *convince *them *to *go.[MOVE people to]

But I suppose there are other contexts where you think the same or a similar 'TO' concept is expressed (which might become evident as a result of the use of a word like 'to').

And in some languages there will be no similarity at all of course.


----------



## ThomasK

Dutch: 
 1. Ik ga *naar*, zij reizen *naar*, zij vertrekken *naar *... 
 2. Ik stuur het *naar *jou. Ik werp het *naar *jou. 
 2b. Ik richt mij *tot *jou. (fig. meaning, more than physical) Ik draai/ keer mij *naar ... *(physical)
 3. Ik hoop *op *goed weer. Ik verlang *naar ... *Ik kijk uit *naar ... *Ik denk *aan... 
*4. Ik dwing ze *(om) te *[(in order) to] gaan. Ik overtuig ze *(om) te *gaan. 

French (but I am not a native speaker): 
1. Je vais *à*, ils voyagent *à*, ils partent *pour*. 
2. Je l'envoie *à *... je le jette* à* ... 
2b. Je me tourne *vers *toi (physical) / Je m'adresse *à* toi. (mental)
3. J'espère X ??? (*DO,* direct object) / qu'il fera beau. Je désire/ ...  *[DO]. *Je pense *à*....
4. Je les force *de* .. Je les convaincs *de* ...


----------



## Rallino

Turkish:
1. Okul*a* gidiyorum. / Paris'*e* yolculuk ediyorum. (Dative.) - Paris *için* yola çıkıyorlar (için=for)
2. San*a* gönderiyorum. / Bunu san*a* atıyorum. (Dative.)
2b. San*a* dönüyorum. (Dative)
3. İyi bir hava olacağı*nı* umuyorum. (Accusative) / İyi havalar*ı* hasretle bekliyorum. (Acc.) / İyi havalar*ı* dört gözle bekliyorum. (Acc.) / İyi havalar*ı* düşünüyorum. (Acc.)
4. Onları gitme*ye* zorluyorum. (Dative. "Gitme" is the "to go" part.) / Onları gitme*ye* ikna ediyorum. (Dative.)




ThomasK said:


> [...]
> French (but I am not a native speaker):
> [...]
> 4. Je les force *de* ..


I would say _Je les force *à*_.
But then I'm not a native speaker either.


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek:

1. *«Στο»* [sto] *(i)* + accusative. 
*«Στο»* [sto] *(i)* derives from the fusion of the preposition and adverb *«εἰς» eis* (Ionic *«ἐς» ĕs*) --> _towards_ (PIE *h₁en-, _in_) + nominative and accusative neuter definite article *«τὸ» tò* --> _the_ (PIE *tod-, _the_): Classical Gr. *«εἰς τὸ»* > Byz. Gr. *«'ς τὸ»* > Modern Gr. *«στο»*
2. *«Στο»* [sto] *(ii)* + verb.
*«Στο»* [sto] *(ii)* derives from the fusion of the genitive 2nd person possessive pronoun *«σοῦ» soû* --> Lat. _tuus_ (PIE *tuH-, _you_) + nominative and accusative neuter definite article *«τὸ» tò* --> _the_ (PIE *tod-, _the_): Classical Gr. *«σοὶ τὸ»* (dative) > Late Byz. Gr. *«σοῦ τὸ»* (genitive) > Modern Gr. *«στο»*.
*«Στο»* [sto] *(i)* ≠ *«Στο»* [sto] *(ii)*.
2a. *«Προς»* [pros] + 2nd person pronoun in accusative.
Adv. and preposition *«προς»* [pros] --> _at, to, towards_ < Classical adverb and preposition *«πρός» prós* --> _furthermore, thereto, from, by, at, to, towards, in face of_ (PIE *proti-, _against_).
3. - (neither preposition nor adverb is needed)
4. - (neither preposition nor adverb is needed). Possibly the final conjunction *«να»* [na] is used in some constructions.
Final conj. *«να»* [na] < Byz. Gr. *«ἱνὰ» hinà* < Classical Gr. *«ἵνᾱ» hínā* --> _that, in order that_ (with origin unclear).


----------



## lingpil

Rallino said:


> I would say _Je les force *à*_.
> But then I'm not a native speaker either.


Absolutely correct.

German:
1. Ich gehe zur Schule/in die Schule. (first one meaning the "job" of a child, second one simply the physical movement to the school building) Sie fahren nach Paris. (nach idicating a movement in a "geographical" scale)
2. Ich schicke es dir. Ich werfe es dir zu. (Dative)
2a. Ich drehe mich zu dir um. (physically) Ich wende mich dir zu. (mentally)
3. Ich hoffe auf gutes Wetter.
4. Ich zwinge sie zu gehen. (Accusative) A better translation, although not very literaly would be: Ich fordere sie dazu auf zu gehen. (I ask them to go.) Zwingen implicates the use of physical force or at least massive threats.


----------



## Encolpius

Hungarian

1. -ba/-be illative
2.  -nak/-nek, -hoz/-hez/-höz dative, allative
2a. -hoz/-hez/-höz allative
3. -nak/-nek; -ra/-re; dative, sublative
4. infinitive


----------



## ThomasK

I wonder about this distinction between 'leaving for Paris' and 'going to'. Is there any rationale? I thought there might be a link with 'hoping for', 'striving for', which also seem to refer to a direction... But I can't see a link with other languages. 

I also wondered about the idea expressed by 3. Turkish, Hungarian, French, don't use a preposition (I suppose prepositions are inexistent or not common in T and H), but for a second I thought the preposition is used to express some idea of reaching for mentally. It might simply not be true - or is there still a possibility that T or H (or F) somehow express that idea of getting closer. (Maybe my view of this hoping/ striving for is simply personal, not based on an underlying semantic aspect...)


----------



## ThomasK

lingpil said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> German:
> 1. Ich gehe *zur *Schule/in die Schule. (first one meaning the "job" of a child, second one simply the physical movement to the school building) Sie fahren nach Paris. (nach idicating a movement in a "geographical" scale)
> 2. Ich schicke es dir. Ich werfe es dir *zu*. (Dative)
> 2a. Ich drehe mich *zu *dir um. (physically) Ich wende mich dir *zu*. (mentally)
> 3. Ich hoffe auf gutes Wetter.
> 4. Ich zwinge sie *zu *gehen. (Accusative) A better translation, although not very literaly would be: Ich fordere sie da*zu* auf zu gehen. (I ask them to go.) Zwingen implicates the use of physical force or at least massive threats.



Ad 4: This 'zu' reminds me of the Dutch 'te', which is an old preposition referring to position or direction, not very common anymore, but still used as part of the infinitive, like the English 'to'. So it might be directional in its original meaning. But I suppose none of that is visible in Turkish, Hungarian. In part it might be visible in French, as in 'forcer à'. Had never thought of that before, but...

Ad 3: would you spontaneously consider these verbs directional? I am inclined to think longing, wishing, etc., are semantically directional, or is even a Direct Object (or an accusative) directional historically?


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> 1.  I go to school. They *travel to* Paris. They *leave for*/*to Paris*. *[MOVE myself]
> 2.  *I send it to you, I throw it at/ *to you*, ... [MOVE something]
> 2a. I t*urn to *you.[Both physical and mental, I think]
> 3.  *I hope for *good weather.  *I long for *good weather*. *I* look forward to *good weather. I* think of ... *[fig. MOVE/mental MOVE]
> 4.  I *force *them *to *go. I *convince *them *to *go.[MOVE people to]



in hebrew to is almost never translated as is. it is though when talking about verbs (to verb)
1. i go to school אני הולך לבית הספר ani holech *le*bet-hasefer
   they travel to paris הם מטיילים בפריז hem metaylim bepariz (it actually cant be translated with more context so i picked an arbitrary tense)
   they leave for/*to paris """"" ("""")

2. אני שולח את זה לך\אליך ani shole'akh et ze lecha\elecha
2a. אני מסתובב לכיוונך ani mistovev lekivuncha (physical) אני פונה אליך ani pone elecha (mentally)
3. אני מקווה למזג אוויר טוב ani mekaveh lemezeg avir tov.
   i look forward to אני מצפה ל ani metzpe le
   i think of אני חושב על ani hoshev al
4. אני מכריח אותם ללכת ani machri'akh otam lalechet
i convince them to go אני משכנע אותם ללכת ani meshachne'a otam lalechet.


----------



## ThomasK

One more question, Arielipi:could you indicate the prefix/ suffix in 2,3,4? Do you have anything directional in 4? I see some le-forms, but does that imply direction?


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> One more question, Arielipi:could you indicate the prefix/ suffix in 2,3,4? Do you have anything directional in 4? I see some le-forms, but does that imply direction?


the prefix is ל, it can be pronounced either le,la,li. in 2 (not 2a) it changes a bit and its either you לך or toyou אליך אל+לך.
ל doesnt always imply direction, it is also the prefix for infinitive form.


----------



## ThomasK

But if you use  ל both for direction and infinitives like English does, then there might be something directional in it. Or does anyone see another explanation for that coincidence?


----------



## lingpil

ThomasK said:


> Ad 3: would you spontaneously consider these verbs directional? I am inclined to think longing, wishing, etc., are semantically directional, or is even a Direct Object (or an accusative) directional historically?



That's actually a good question. It seems that in most languages I speak such verb-preposition constructions can be considered directional. "Auf" can indicate a direction if you want to say that you are going on a mountain or on an island (or a group thereof). Like in:
_Wir machen eine Wanderung auf diesen Berg__._ (We are going to hike on this mountain.) 
_Morgen fliegen wir auf die Malediven. _(Tomorrow we will fly to the Maldives.)
In Russian it's the same: After "hope" you use the preposition "нa" (na) which can be used indicating directions like the German "auf" and the issue you are hoping for is also accusative. Unfortunately, I don't have a cyrillic keyboard, so it's hard for me to type long sentences in Russian.
French finally, handles it in a different way. _J'espère que... Pourvu que.... _Nothing indicating directionality.


----------



## franknagy

> 1. I go to school. They travel to Paris. They leave for/*to Paris. [MOVE myself]
> 2. I send it to you, I throw it at/ *to you, ... [MOVE something]
> 2a. I turn to you.[Both physical and mental, I think]
> 3. I hope for good weather. I long for good weather. I look forward to good weather. I think of ... [fig. MOVE/mental MOVE]
> 4. I force them to go. I convince them to go.[MOVE people to]
> ----
> I also wondered about the idea expressed by 3. Turkish, Hungarian, French, don't use a preposition (I suppose prepositions are inexistent or not common in T and H), but for a second I thought the preposition is used to express some idea of reaching for mentally. It might simply not be true - or is there still a possibility that T or H (or F) somehow express that idea of getting closer.


I think that in the terminology of computer languages the English word *"to" is an overloaded operator that is a single word with too many meaning*.

Let me answer the Hungarian translations with concrete expression.
 1. I go to school.= Iskolába megyek.
They travel to Paris. = Párizsba utaznak.
They leave for/*to Paris. = Párizs felé indultak. (They left Budapest in the direction of Paris but they had not really intend to reach Paris.)
2. I send it to you. = Neked küldöm.
 I throw it at/ **to* you. = *Felé*d/*nek*ed dobom. (I throw the ball towards you/in your hands.)
2a. I turn *to* you. = *Hoz*zád fordulok. (I turn to you in order to get this business because your schoolmate was the prime minister).
3. I look forward to good weather. = Jó időre számítok.
4. I force them to go. = Menni kényszerítem őket (infinitive) / Erőltetem őket, hogy menjenek (subjunctive).
I convince them to go. = I  convince them that they have to go.= Meggyőzöm őket, hogy menniük kell (conjugated infitive + auxiliary verb).
----
H uses not prepositios but a) suffixes like -ba/be, -ra/re or b) postpositions like felé.
----
As you can see H uses different structure to express the action reaches the aimed place/person or approaches them only.

Regards
  Frank


----------



## ThomasK

@Lingpil: the information about 'hope' in Russian is very interesting to me. I was not aware of that use of 'auf' in German, but it seems interesting. 

 @Franknagy: you're quite right that 'to' has quite some meanings, but grammaticalization assumes/ shows that quite some suffixes, function words (conj., prep., ...), are historically/ etymologically based on lexical words - and that is also my hypothesis here: that the directional meaning was the basic meaning and accounts for some uses. 
I have just found proof for the link between 1-2 and 4 via grammaticalisation here. 
But you rightly point out that it is not the case or hardly the case in Hungarian. I am amazed at the variation of pre- and suffixes used on the other hand, but Hungarian is non-Indo-European, isn't it. Yet, I suppose we agree there is the same basic underlying meaning, isn't there, in 1 and 2 at least. My hypothesis does not work as for 3 and 4 in French and Romanic languages, I think, either, except if there were some reason for considering accusative directional, which does not seem nonsensical to me --- but i agree, this is not a strong argument. Russian supports the view that some abstract verbs seem to refer to direction. 

 As for 4: I assume that convincing/ forcing might be considered as a form of figurative pushing, which implies a direction. Do your infinitives in 4 have a special case form? (_This conjugation of in-finite forms seems like a contradiction to me, but I suppose it is all more complex, I guess, too complex in this context.) 

BTW: my starting point is didactic. I am trying to find explanations/ rationales for the use of prepositions in Dutch, sometimes different from French and English. But of course the ambition to just gain insight and see unsuspected links between words is an extra factor of course... _

 I suppose your last line refers to the distinction between 'to' and 'in the direction of' (towards ?). I think the distinction is made in other languages too, but there it is a lexical distinction , I think, not  a grammatical one. Could that be true? Could that distinction explain anything in 4 (in H)? I suppose not, but...


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> I wonder about this distinction between 'leaving for Paris' and 'going to'. Is there any rationale?


 I thing the prep. "for" does not express directly any direction here, instead the "original" interpretation could be something like this: "I leave_ the place where I am _for ('in favour of') Paris".


----------



## ThomasK

It might be true, but in French à and pour seem almost synonyms, a native speaker told me. I think therefore it does refer to direction. Do you have information sustaining your view? (I am biased, I know ;-))


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> But if you use  ל both for direction and infinitives like English does, then there might be something directional in it. Or does anyone see another explanation for that coincidence?


These are two different uses of ל - its like having the same root but there are 2 uses to it and the root is the same by coincidence. Though, if you ask me, i think it is appropriate to have ל for both. also ל isnt the only thing implying direction, there are other words that are more used than ל.
when using ל as an imply of *where* then it is mostly done in the form of "to there/here"


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> It might be true, but in French à and pour seem almost synonyms, a native speaker told me. I think therefore it does refer to direction. Do you have information sustaining your view? (I am biased, I know ;-))


No, it's only my personal idea . However, the verb "to leave" essentially means rather "to abandon" or "to go away from" and not "to go to". So I think expressions like "I leave for ..." originally emphasized rather the departure or the "going away from somewhere" and not the destination (Paris).

P.S. I think "I leave to Paris" would be agrammatical (but I'm not a native English speaker ...)


----------



## ThomasK

@FG : I see, and I understand. Not implausible indeed. Yet, my French colleague really pointed out the near-synonymity of à and pour; so that is a counterargument, I think. Plus: hoping for, striving for, seem to illustrate that this for is really goal-oriented. You cannot deny (I  hope ;-)) that both verbs and maybe some others use 'fro' while clearly 
referring to a goal (or a destination). 

@Arielipi: I understand. They may just be homophones, but do admit that it might substantiate my theory... (I know, I am biased ;-))


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ...  Plus: hoping for, striving for, seem to illustrate that this for is really goal-oriented. You cannot deny (I  hope ;-)) that both verbs and maybe some others use 'fro' while clearly referring to a goal (or a destination).


I do not deny it absolutely . Even more, I think that the goal-oriented character of the preposition "for" allows it's usagage in the discussed expression. So what I'm saying is that the prep. "for" here originally expressed rather the _goal _(in general) and not explicetely the _direction_. Of course, in case of "for Paris" the concept of _goal _and _direction _practicaly coincide, that's why the today's interpretation of "to leave for" as _quasi _equivalent of "to go to".

P.S. An example of the possible "original" interpetation of "I leave for Paris": 
I leave (the place where I am now) for (the purpose of visiting) Paris.


----------



## mataripis

ThomasK said:


> I think 'to' mainly refers to direction, but how do you translate it in these contexts, or how do you refer to (kind-of) direction?
> 
> 1.  I go to school. They *travel to* Paris. They *leave for*/*to Paris*. *[MOVE myself]
> 2.  *I send it to you, I throw it at/ *to you*, ... [MOVE something]
> 2a. I t*urn to *you.[Both physical and mental, I think]
> 3.  *I hope for *good weather.  *I long for *good weather*. *I* look forward to *good weather. I* think of ... *[fig. MOVE/mental MOVE]
> 4.  I *force *them *to *go. I *convince *them *to *go.[MOVE people to]
> 
> But I suppose there are other contexts where you think the same or a similar 'TO' concept is expressed (which might become evident as a result of the use of a word like 'to').
> 
> And in some languages there will be no similarity at all of course.
> 
> Tagalog: 1.) Nagtungo/punta ako sa Paaralan/Eskwela. Naglakbay sila patungo sa Paris. 2) Padala ko sa iyo, initsa ko sa iyo.  2a.) Bumaling ako sa iyo. 3.) Umaasam ako sa magandang panahon. 4.) Pilit ko silang pinalikas. Hinimok ko silang umalis.


----------



## ThomasK

Would you please point out where the to is? Or is het _sa _? Then it seems as if you can use it in 1-3, but not in 4. Could you go into the precise meaning of _ko and _silang and tell us where the direct object _them _is _? _If _silang _is a conjunction, can you analyse it?


----------



## franknagy

ThomasK,
I think your question refers to my paragraph
[QUOTE franknagy]4. I force them to go. = Menni kényszerítem őket (infinitive) / Erőltetem őket, hogy menjenek (subjunctive).
I convince them to go. = I  convince them that they have to go.= Meggyőzöm őket, hogy menniük kell (conjugated infitive + auxiliary verb).[/QUOTE]

A. The word  TO in English used as the particle of Infinitive, not only as a preposition.
That mens if we enlist its possible counterparts then in all languages where the Infinitive exists we go the bunch of Infinitive structures.

B. The English preposition TO corresponds to German ZU and many others. We may find many corresponding prepositions in Indoeuropean languages. 

-----
The overloaded English TO has many counterparts in Hungarian. 
A. The Hungarian infinitive structures corresponding the "to go" type English ones have a strange property for you. The infinitive "menni" can be conjugated as in my last example "menniük". (Simple present "we go"="mi megyünk".)

B. The Hungarian language uses postpositions and suffixes. All suffixed began their life as postpositions. Some of them have stuck to the words, have got two forms in order to obey the vowel harmony. Their original state is used in the forms corresponding <prepos>+<pres prn>.


----------



## ThomasK

I am not quite sure I'll be able to respond in the right way. Please correct me where I am wrong: 

 0. I do know that TO here is used in different ways (prep., part., ...), but I think they have the same root in Germanic languages, and that is what I would to go into with regard to other languages, whether there is* something directional about those uses of to *in other languages. 
 1. The TO before the inf. is not so necessary; inf. can be used with _to_, or without sometimes. I prefer to focus on the use of TO in *purpose clauses*: _I do something (in order) TO find ... 
 2. _The fact that TO has so many counterparts in Hungary might be an indication that this directional quality is not, er, universal or at least present in some other languages. Yet, I think in some languages there is an indication of directionality (like French pour). 
 3. Just BTW: this directionality is not something a lot of people are aware of. However, I arrived at that theory while trying to find some logic for the use of prepositions in Dutch. Then I wondered about the phenomenon in other languages (see 2.). 

 As for the _have to _version: is that still an infinitive? What is the precise meaning of _hogy _and of _kell _(must ?). The status and meaning of hogy are very important here. BTW: Is *menni *a case form of the inf.? 

 Do you have a typical *directional case form*? Can you use it in a figurative sense?

Do you have a typical directional case form? Can you use it in a figurative sense?


----------



## franknagy

ThomasK,

Some of your questions are off the topic of "to". 

Let me, however, answer them here. I hope the operator permits it to me. If not, we'll continue them privately.


> As for the _have to _version: is that still an infinitive? What is the precise meaning of _hogy _and of _kell _(must ?). The status and meaning of hogy are very important here. BTW: Is *menni *a case form of the inf.?



You can recognize the basic form of the Hungarian infinitive by its *-ni.
*It is added to the dictionary form of the Hungarian verbs.
Their dictionary form has root+Ø structure. It is the Third Person Singular of the Present Tense Indicative Mode of the Indefinite [Alanyi] Conjugation. The infinitive is made by a frequent binding vowel and seldom assimilation of the last consonant of the root. The forms treated in column#4 get the usual endings of the Definite [Tárgyas] Conjugation after the *-n-*.



MeaningRootInf.Form next to "must","may" like aux. verbs 
I, you, he/she, ...readolvasolvasniolvasnom, olvasnod, olvasnia, ...writeírírniírnom, írnod, írnia, ...let passereszteresztenieresztenem, eresztened, eresztenie, ...gomegymennimennem, menned, mennie, ....


Hogy = that = a conjuction word (dass, что).

Kell = must, szabad = may, ..., tilos = prohibited.

Nem akaródzik menned az iskolába? = Don't *you* feel like going to the school.
Tudom, hogy *neked* _is_ menned kell az iskolába. = I know that *you *_also_ have to go to the school. 

Hint:
The English Subject *you* is expressed in Hungarian in Dative case "*neked* _is_ menned kell"  just like in Russian equivalent:
_"Тебе тоже надо уйти в школу."_


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for the extensive information. I don't think it's off-topic, as I am trying to find out whether this directionality is somehow present. But I am afraid that there is no directionality to be discovered here. Too bad then, from my point of view. ;-) There is just one question you did not answer, I think: do you have *a case form expressing directionality *in column 4?


----------



## franknagy

Listen *to* the old witch!
Hallgass a vén boszorkány*ra*!
Go *to* the white cliff
Menj a fehér sziklá*ig*
which is similar *to *an sitting eagle.
ami egy ülő sas*ra* hasonlít!
Turn right and climb up *to* the hermit’s cave.
Fordulj jobbra és mássz föl a remete barlangjá*hoz*!
You must not tell *to* the outcoming hermit
Nem szabad azt mondanod a kijövő remeté*nek*,
that you have come for the key *to* the door of the chamber of treasures
hogy a kincseskamra kulcs*á*ért jöttél
because he transforms *to* a drake and eats you.
mert sárkán*nyá* változik és megesz téged.
If you prefer live *to* death
Ha az életed kedvesebb a halálod*nál*,
then you _ought_ *to* say him
akkor _inkább azt kellene_ mondanod neki,
that you tied a virgin *to* the oak tree
hogy egy szüzet kötöztél a tölgyfá*hoz*
next *to* the hot spring.
a meleg forrás *mellett*.
If the hermit hears it then he will run head over heels down *to* the spring
Ha a remete ezt meghallja akkor hanyatt-homlok le fog rohanni a forrás *felé*,
and the key *to* the chamber of treasures
és a kincseskamra kulcs*a*
will fall *to* your hand.
a kezed*be* fog esni.


----------



## ThomasK

Impressive list, thanks a lot. I suppose you are giving examples that belong to these categories: 



Encolpius said:


> Hungarian
> 
> 1. -ba/-be illative
> 2.  -nak/-nek, -hoz/-hez/-höz dative, allative
> 2a. -hoz/-hez/-höz allative
> 3. -nak/-nek; -ra/-re; dative, sublative
> 4. infinitive



Too bad, I am not familiar with these cases (except for dative, fig. 'to'). But my information tells me that illative is 'into', allative 'onto', sublative 'away from', which all have something directional, but that is about it. I suppose you would not consider them linked. Thanks a lot for this information!


----------



## sakvaka

*Finnish*:

1. (_generally_) _Käyn* koulua._ (direct object), _(as an event) _Menen kouluun. (_illative_) He matkustavat Pariisiin. (_illative_) He lähtevät Pariisiin. (_illative_)
2. Lähetän sen sinulle (_allative_), heitän sen sinulle (_allative_), käännyn sinun puoleesi / sinua kohti (_prepositional phrases but imply illative or some other locational case_)
3. Toivon hyvää säätä, kaipaan hyvää säätä, odotan hyvää säätä... (_direct objects_)
4. Pakotan heidät menemään, saan heidät menemään... (_3rd infinitive illatives_)

The third infinitive illative is a nominal form of verbs that consists of the verb stem (_mene-_), the infix -mA- and the illative ending -VVn_ (where V indicates any vowel_).

Allative is the 'onto' case, illative is the 'into' case.

--
* käydä = French 'fréquenter'


----------



## ThomasK

Interesting, thanks. 

As for 3: you can never have something V + non-acc. object/ non-DO object then? I suppose you wil never express any longing for or striving for, which I consider tentative wishing, using a verb with illative or allative (based on the parallel with going/... somewhere)? No metaphorical use of going for example possible (as in 'let's go for that !')?

As for 4: can I take that as some kind of confirmation of some kind of  directionality?


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> Interesting, thanks.
> 
> As for 3: you can never have something V + non-acc. object/ non-DO object then? I suppose you wil never express any longing for or striving for, which I consider tentative wishing, using a verb with illative or allative (based on the parallel with going/... somewhere)? No metaphorical use of going for example possible (as in 'let's go for that !')?



Longing for: _kaivata_ (long for sth) takes a direct object. But there's the expression _kaivata takaisin jhk_ (long back to) which takes an illative or an allative. However, here I think the directionality is triggered by the preposition _takaisin_, not the verb itself.

Striving for *is *actually expressed with directional verbs: _pyrkiä jhk_ (illative). This page has a non-comprehensive list of verbs that usually take the illative, but to see it you need to scroll down a bit.



> As for 4: can I take that as some kind of confirmation of some kind of  directionality?



Yes, you can. There's very much directionality present in those constructions.


----------



## ThomasK

I am glad to hear that there is some kind of equivalent for the  strive for, long for type of V+Prep phrases, and the list is quite interesting indeed!!! And you make my day, especially because you confirm that my guess regarding 4 is correct. 

So interesting to hear that a similar 'mechanism' seems to work here, whereas my hypothesis was based on semantics only.


----------



## learnerr

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> 1.  I go to school. They *travel to* Paris. They *leave for*/*to Paris*. *[MOVE myself]
> 2.  *I send it to you, I throw it at/ *to you*, ... [MOVE something]
> 2a. I t*urn to *you.[Both physical and mental, I think]
> 3.  *I hope for *good weather.  *I long for *good weather*. *I* look forward to *good weather. I* think of ... *[fig. MOVE/mental MOVE]
> 4.  I *force *them *to *go. I *convince *them *to *go.[MOVE people to]


What made you think any distinction proceeds along these categories? To my mind, it has a lot more to do with the character of movement, with its goals, its destination etc, i.e. what relation they all have to the indirect object. For example, in Russian "я еду в Париж" ("I travel to Paris") and "я послал багаж в Париж" ("I sent my luggage to Paris") both use accusative with the preposition for "in", and "я иду к тебе" ("I go to you") and "я послал тебе письмо" ("I sent a letter to you") both use dative, the first uses the preposition for "to", the second may also use it, but usually does not. As for the third, you have "я обернулся к тебе" ("I turned to you-dative"), "я обернулся в твоём направлении" ("I turned in your direction-locative"), "я обернулся в твою сторону" ("I turned in your side-accusative").


----------



## ThomasK

i am not sure I understand. I am not looking for a distinction, but for a similarity. The structures I refer to (1-4) may be very personal, are somehow hypothetical, but based on similarities in West Germanic languages. As for me direction, goal, destination, are all related, and so is movement indeed. 

I know that I make it very general, but I considered even that very general link 'useful' from my didactic viewpoint...


----------



## franknagy

> do you have *a case form expressing directionality *in column 4


Not at all.
It is a counterpart of the possessor+possessed noun+noun structure.
Hungarian language expresses it with a personal suffix on the possessed thing.
Eye=szem
Tom's eye=
Tamás szem*e*.

Your eye=szem*ed*.
My eye=szem*em*.


----------



## ThomasK

So you use a kind of genitive after (modal) auxiliaries? Yes, now I understand: my mistake, due to 'thinking wishfully' _(interestingly, Finnish does use a directional form here). _

 One last point, just for fun, giving in to some desperate wishful thinking ;-): I  just read about the Hungarian equivalent of 'I have' in some other thread...


> For example, in Hungarian, one may say "van egy barátom", meaning "I have a friend", which would literally translate to something like "is a friend-my", i.e. "a friend of mine exists" or something such.



 The possessor is really decribed here as a genitive, not a dative (something like 'Something is to [for] him'), isn't it?


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ...  The possessor is really decribed here as a genitive, not a dative (something like 'Something is to [for] him'), isn't it?


In my opinion, no. The Indo-European case system cannot be directly compared with the "cases" of the agglutinative languages. So the possessive is simply a "possessive", not a genitive or other IE-like case. Historically it is rather a _personal marker _that indicates "whom something belongs to". Thus we can find the same or similar endings (_personal marker_s) both in the possessive of nouns and in the conjugation of verbs, and elsewhere. For example:

írom - I write
házam - my house
hozzám - to me

írod - you write (= thou writest) 
házad - your (=thy) house
hozzád - to you (=to thee)

etc...


----------



## ThomasK

I understand, I suppose: I am using grammatical (grammatico-syntactic ?) categories that are too specific. Possessive is not an equivalent of genitive, indeed, I quite agree. On the other hand, one can say there is still a reference to the concept of possession, I believe, but I suppose that one could from a cognitive linguistics point of view distinguish between different interpretations  (implementations) of possession. in this case I had not found another word to refer to a view of possession. But I suppose or no, I am afraid all of this is too far-fetched... Butr as I said, my starting point was didactic and I was hoping to arrive at some insight that proved didactically useful as well...


----------



## francisgranada

An other observation (I don't know if it helps ...). The construction


> ... "van egy barátom", meaning "I have a friend" ...


 is the result of the combination of two independent phenomena: (1) the _possessive _(barátom) and (2) the usage of the _copula _(_van_=Lat. _est_) instead of a "habere"-like verb.

So if there existed a "habere" verb in Hungarian, the object would be (probably) in accusative (as in Latin, for example). The construction "van egy barátom" cannot be translated directly to Latin, it is neither dative nor genitive. _Ad absurdum_, it is something like "est unus amicus-m" (_-m _is my personal _ad hoc_ invention for _meus _, only for illustration)


----------



## franknagy

Dear Thomask,
Read my contribution to the tread http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1203613&page=2 in the Magyar branch of the WRF.
[QUOTE franknagy]The 18 or even more cases of the Hungarian language are false facts in order to frighten people intending to learn Hungarian.
Where does this elevated number come from? It comes from linguists who  force the grammatical categories of Indoeuropean languages to the  description of the Hungarian grammar. The application of Indoeuropean  cases to the Hungarian nouns procrustean bed.[/QUOTE]

_The definition illativus, ablativus, blahblahtivus+15 phantastivus does bot help you understand the logic of Hungarian language. You have to learn the *suffixes*. They have usually two forms like
_(-ban, -ben; -val, -vel) in order to obey the harmony of vowels(*). The same suffix expresses always the same spatial or temporal relationship. They are the same in singular an plural, unlike in Russian.

EN in the house, in the garden, in the houses, in the gardens; 
RU в доме      , в саду       , в домах      , в садах;
HU a házban    , a kertben    , a házakban   , a kertekben.

(*) The vowels in suffixes and the binding vowels must be in the same class as th vowel of the root.  

Regards,
   Frank


----------



## franknagy

ThomasK said:


> So you use a kind of genitive after (modal) auxiliaries? Yes, now I understand: my mistake, due to 'thinking wishfully' _(interestingly, Finnish does use a directional form here). _
> 
> One last point, just for fun, giving in to some desperate wishful thinking ;-): I  just read about the Hungarian equivalent of 'I have' in some other thread...
> 
> 
> The possessor is really decribed here as a genitive, not a dative (something like 'Something is to [for] him'), isn't it?



> genitive after (modal) auxiliaries
Yes, if I consider the form where the obliged person is *emphasized*.
*Neked* kell megcsináln_od_ a házi feladat_od_at, nem *nekem*, vagy a húg_od_*nak*.
*You *have to make _your _homework, neither *I*, nor _your _younger sister has to do it.

The *-nak, -nek* is often taught as genitive and dative case.

Dative:
Redcap brings food for her grandma.
Piroska ennivalót visz a nagymamájának.

Genitive in the middle of chained possessive structures:
The queen's _pirate'*s* _ship (or the ship of the queen's pirate?)
A királynő _kalóz*ának*_ a hajó_*ja*_.

Queen=királynő (if she rules by her own right) / királyné (if she is only the wife of the ruling king).
Pirate=kalóz.
Hajó=ship.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks a lot. It helps to get a view of cases in Hungarian, but our starting point was: can we express direction using cases (in Hungarian)? I believe you don't consider[the semantic names ?] illative, ablative, very useful, but I'd spontaneously consider them interesting because they 'express' a kind of movement, as in Finnish. But you might be right !!

Yet, in some similar way Dutch prefixes help to decipher new verbs: _ont_-, LAT _de_- = away from, _toe_-/_aan_-, LAT _ad_- = towards, etc. (as in other Germanic and to some extent other Indo-European languages).


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ... but our starting point was: can we express direction using cases (in Hungarian)? I believe you don't consider[the semantic names ?] illative, ablative, very useful, but I'd spontaneously consider them interesting because they 'express' a kind of movement, as in Finnish. ...


The Hunagrian so called "locative cases" explicitely express directions or position. Examples:

házban - in the house (position)
házba - to the house (direction "to")
házból - from the house (direction "from")

házon - on (top of) the house (position)
házra - onto the house (direction "to")
házról - from (top of) the house (direction "from")
etc...

As to the terminology, I think the terms like _illative, ablative,_ etc ... are perfectly ok. Rather the term "case" may not be adequate enough as the Hungarian "case" suffixes _fully express_ their functionality, while the IE cases are _inflected forms_ of the noun/adjective/prounoun and they are often used in combination with _prepositions _to obtain the full "functionality".  But finally, it's also question of the definition of the proper term "case" ... 


> Yet, in some similar way Dutch prefixes help to decipher new verbs: _ont_-, LAT _de_- = away from, _toe_-/_aan_-, LAT _ad_- = towards, etc. (as in other Germanic and to some extent other Indo-European languages).


The same in Hungarian, perhaps even more inambiguosely, as all the prefixes can be separated from the verb and they maintain their "adverbial" character.


----------



## ThomasK

Interesting additions. Can you use inf. in a directional form? (Suppose not, but... ;-)) -- Just by the way: certain verbs like the ones in 4, are often called 'directives', I suddenly realize...


----------



## francisgranada

Some examples:

Menni kényszerítették - They forced him to go
Elküldtem a fiamat tanulni - I sent my son to learn

(verbs in _-ni_ are infinitives)

I have the feeling that such constructions are less productive in Hungarian than e.g. in English (for example this doesn't work with _to convince, to ask,_ etc..._)_


----------



## franknagy

ThomasK,
[QUOTE francisgranada]
házban - in the house (position)
házba - to the house (direction "to")
házból - from the house (direction "from")

házon - on (top of) the house (position)
házra - onto the house (direction "to")
házról - from (top of) the house (direction "from")
[/QUOTE]

Francisgranada grouped his example in the same way as I planned to show you.
The Hungarian suffixes and postpositions can be grouped in triads:
1. The investigated object is moving towards the reference object.
2. The investigated object is standing at a certain position (on the surface, inside, below, ...) of the reference object.
3. The investigated object is moving away the reference object.

1. házhoz - to the house (horizontally)
2. háznál - at the house (not exactly at the wall)
3. háztól - from the house (horizontally)

1. a ház mellé - beside to the house (horizontally)
2. a ház mellett - next to the house (not exactly at the wall)
3. a ház mellől - from the side the house (horizontally)

1. a ház alá - underneath to the house (vertically )
2. a ház alatt - under the house (vertically)
3. a ház alól - from underneath (vertically)

Look at the system of the endings!


The better language books illustrate the postpositions written them around a


bridge
a cube
a dino
with  o--> marked postpositions.


----------



## ThomasK

Very interesting. One feels like reading more about how Hungarian views and therefore describes relations between people and things...But er, there is so much - and i prefer to stick to my didactically inspired amazing hypotheses. ;-)


----------

