# Conceive of



## ThomasK

This might be a strange question, but could there be a reason for the 'of' ? _Concevoir_ in French only has a direct object, but in English this 'of' turns up.  I do not see this phenomenon in Dutch or German either. I guess analogy could explain something, but then: what is the precise meaning? I thought of 'to imagine', 'to develop by thinking', to generate a 'fruit [of thought]', but the E-Dutch Van Dale refers to empathy ('invoelen')???

So: does analogy offer an explanation, or is there another ? Or is there none? (The 'of' prepositional object in English seems rare to me, by the way)


----------



## berndf

I *guess* this is a distant echo of former genetive objects, similar to German "einer Sache gewahr werden". In Old English, as in Modern German, objects could be accusative, dative or genitive.


----------



## ThomasK

Ok, thanks, but then: why in English but not in German (of all Germanic languages the one with the [most ?] cases)? As a matter of fact there are very few German verbs with a genitive as well, aren't there.

My other point would be: how come there are still fewer in English, and especially why does the English *conceive of* have a genitive, but not any other Germanic language? Could you imagine any 'logic' for that? _(Maybe there is none at all, I just wonder...)_


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

ThomasK said:


> Ok, thanks, but then: why in English but not in German (of all Germanic languages the one with the [most ?] cases)? As a matter of fact there are very few German verbs with a genitive as well, aren't there.
> 
> My other point would be: how come there are still fewer in English, and especially why does the English *conceive of* have a genitive, but not any other Germanic language? Could you imagine any 'logic' for that? _(Maybe there is none at all, I just wonder...)_


 
There is always some kind of reason behind something, sometimes that reason is so ridiculous or impossibly miniscule that in fact there appears none at all.  

There are plenty of verbs where English adds a preposition and other languages with cognate verbs do not.  

Example (not really a cognate verb though!):

I'm waiting for you.  

Spanish:

Te espero.  

Here, English uses the benefactive case,_ I am waiting on your behalf_, where as in Spanish it is simply a direct object.  

"Conceive of" is only requiered when using a noun/object (gerundives count too).  

He's conceiving *of* killing you!

He conceives *of* killing you!

He conceived *of* an idea.  

The gerundive is being examined as a noun here.  

versus

He conceives *to* kill you!  

The genitive is on its way out of the German language, as far as I've been told.  Strangely, the genitive case is actually strongly manifested in English in the form of the Anglo-Saxon posessive.  I have been also told that in everyday speech, Germans do not use the genitive s to show posession but rather an analytical construction "von."  The opposite is true in English; we use it as much as possible whenever possible.  No natives will ever say "of" to indicate possession unless it is idiomatic or they are trying to sound formal.  Also keep in mind the German "s" is only applied to neuter and masculine singular words and proper names.  In English, any noun can be inflected with the "s!"  

In my mind, when one "conceives of something" in English, we are taking "possession" of an idea in our mind and thus it belongs to us.  It is a mental process of going about and creating an idea/thought/plan from what one already knows.  

Genitive constructions are indeed preserved in English via prepositions, for example when comparing German prepositions which require the genitive, the English counterpart also does too:

Während=in the course *of*

Nordlich=north *of*

Wegen=because *of* (_the cause _*of*)

I can't really give you a scientific hard proof logic on why it is so, but hopefully I have cleared something up.


----------



## ThomasK

I think this is a great answer. Thanks. 

 I was aware of the frequency of the phenomenon to some extent (although waiting for is typically Germanic, so it seems to me). And you are pointing out some very interesting parallels. 
I may be allowed _[can you say that in English ?]_ to go into it.You might be right as for the case suggestion: taking into possession, benefactive case. I vaguely remember a case theory (Fillmore ?) dating back to 30 years ago, but then again the interesting aspect then was that we recognized a common (universal ?) [orientational ?] concept. 

Here I don't really, but it is quite true: you do not have it with 'wait' either. I now think of 'valencies' of verbs, and tend to suggest there is a different -well... - worldview, or no, semantic concept underlying the verbs. Would you agree? A benefactive relationship is somehow different from a 'passive' (DO) relationship _[we used to call a DO in Dutch a passive object, as mainly the object of the activity described in the verb]_. 

Could such a hypothesis that presence/ absence of prepositions refer to different underlying semantic concepts hold, do you think ? (In other words : the surface meaning may be the same, but somehow there is a difference in the underlying semantic concept) [You need not go into this if too far-fetched !]


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> Ok, thanks, but then: why in English but not in German (of all Germanic languages the one with the [most ?] cases)?...


I don't quite understand. I gave you a possible translation with a genitive object in German ("einer Sache gewahr werden").


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> You might be right as for the case suggestion: taking into possession, benefactive case.


I would rather understand this as a partitive (like "a sum of money", "a piece of cake") and not as a possesive genitive. Partitive semantics are much mode frequent than possessive ones for genitive objects. In English partitive uses of the genitive have all been replaced by prepositional constructs, usually "of" (maybe always?) confining the -s genitive to possessive meanings.


----------



## ThomasK

berndf said:


> I don't quite understand. I gave you a possible translation with a genitive object in German ("einer Sache gewahr werden").


 
Yes, quite right, but I thought it was strange that the genitive turns up elsewhere, but not here, with the German equivalent of _conceive of_ - or at least not as far as I can see. Or do you consider 'gewahr werden' a synonym of 'conceive'? I would not, but... 

Partitive/ possessive: I cannot really see any specific meaning in conceive of, relating to partition or possession. Can you explain? 

Could it be a matter of meaning something different, or at least seeing things a little differently ?


----------



## brian

We also say _to think of something_, which in French is _penser à quelque chose_, and in German is _an etwas denken_. So in a way, one could say that it's peculiar to French and German that the respective _conceive_ versions do NOT have _of_ (or _à, de, an, auf,_ or what have you), seeing as the _think_ versions do.

Really it all just boils down to the specific word in a given language. You can't always compare the same idea, or even the same cognate, across languages. Some languages express an idea with a verb that takes an object, while others express it with a verb that takes a prepositional phrase / with a phrasal verb.


----------



## ThomasK

brian said:


> You can't always compare the same idea, or even the same cognate, across languages.


 
Shouldn't we say that we cannot compare them with, but that we can compare them to each other, and recognize the differences? Of course what I am trying to do is even more dangerous: I am trying to find some rationale (where there is one). 

BTW: to my mind there is *a considerable difference, or no, there might be*, between 'just' using different prepositions and versions with and without preposition. Which implies, I guess, the question: does a preposition (part of a prepositional object, I mean) have a very specific meaning ? 

_I just thought: let us compare semantic differences and say what the precise meaning is and/or what the translation could be in your language? But I'll ask that question at the "All Languages' section._


----------



## koniecswiata

Languages, no matter how related or unrelated to each other, are very specific in their use of prepositions.  Often, the use of prepositions can seem completely arbitrary, and we may never really know why a certain preposition is used.  We can just speculate.

Along with this, the corresponding verb "concebir" (conceive) in Spanish, does not take a preposition (concebir una idea).  In English this verb takes two functions--the conceptual (conceive of something) as opposed to the more tangible (conceive something)--such as a baby / without use of preposition.  Perhaps, the semantic difference between these two actions is being highlighted by the use of "of" in one kind of conceiving.  

As for the use of "of" for partitive/genetive statements, here English is doing the same as Slavic languages, for example:  "a lot of" corresponds to Slavic "quantifier + noun (genetive).  I don't really know French, but I believe that indefinite plural nouns have to be preceeded by "des"--plurality/quantity in tandem with a word that technically has a kind of genitive genesis, I suppose.  Perhaps, there are more links on a very subtle level between a lot of languages than immediately meet the eye.


----------



## ThomasK

Very interesting considerations indeed: 
- the difference between the two _conceive_s might highlight a subtle difference indeed, though I would have expected the two to be the other way around
- the connection with French _des_: yes, might well be a genitive originally

The question is indeed whether there are very 'subtle' semantic differences, but the point will be: how does one prove that ?


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> I would have expected the two to be the other way around


It is only the meaning of perceiving something which takes the "of" and it is this meaning which has a partitive connotation: By perceiving an object you capture the object's image, i.e. part of it and not the entire object. I don't think you would ever say "a woman conceives of a baby"; at least to me this sounds wrong.

I think, when you say "conceiving of an idea" you blend these two meanings and the "of" is due to the analogy of an image you perceive of something.


----------



## brian

Then why don't we say *_perceive *of* something_? 

Or does perception imply totality, and conception merely partiality?

This really gets more into philosophy than anything else! I don't know if we really can rationalize the use of certain prepositions, or what they truly mean.


----------



## ThomasK

Excellent question - and I am afriad you are right: we "can't simply" rationalize it. But cannot it interesting to just explore some possible ways of explaining it? 

For example: could it be that 'conceive _of_' came about (...) in order to distinguish it from 'conceive' in the very physical sense? 'Perceive', if any, would 'deserve' a partitive 'of', so I think ! ;- 

_See the thread regarding 'wait' at 'All Languages'. It seems strange (well, not a coincidence to me...) that Germanic and Romanic lanugages have a preposition, or a 'prepositional prefix', though in Romanic languages it is/ seems to be because there is no separate word for 'waiting', only a combination of a verb and a prep. prefix. _


----------

