Well, it’s something funny to see these changes in English, transforming an intransitive verb "to wait" in a transitive "to await"... And how what you find a-musing can be-muse others…
What is there to say about it? Are there rules for these prefixes? As always I try to find correspondance with the German ent-, be-, er- and other [I]untrennbare[/I] prefixes.
There is an odd a- prefix in English that affects mostly adverbs and adjectives, but this is not it. The words wait and await entered into use in the Middle English of the 12th century. They are both from Old Norman French. The a- prefix is, thus, a French feature rather than an English one. It is the French preposition à. It occurs quite frequently in Modern French as a prefix - battre, to beat, and abattre, to knock down. Often its effect is intensifying, as in the last example, but is essentially a rather inexact method of stem reassignment. It can produce denomial verbs - abêtire, to become stupid, from bêtise, stupid(ity).
WonderingSpaniard, the same thing happens with Spanish batir, combatir, abatir, debatir, Portuguese bater, combater, abater, debater, Italian battere, combattere, abattere, dibattere, French battre, combattre, abattre, debattre. Go blame Latin!
However, I understand what you mean, German usually uses the prefix be to turn an intransitive verb into a transitive verb, like kämpfen für and bekämpfen, antworten auf and beantworten (Dutch has the same thing antwoorden op and beantwoorden) but they sometimes have subtle differences in meaning which only context can explain.
Yeah, actually, BD, my point was that the prefix a- in await seemed to me more of a Germanic one, with variation of case (Präp-erg. to Akk-erg.), rather than the emphatic Latinate form Garzo has highlighted…
[quote author=Brazilian_dude link=board=grammar;num=1089239810;start=0#2 date=07/11/04 at 11:25:36]
However, I understand what you mean, German usually uses the prefix be to turn an intransitive verb into a transitive verb, like kämpfen für and bekämpfen, antworten auf and beantworten (Dutch has the same thing antwoorden op and beantwoorden) but they sometimes have subtle differences in meaning which only context can explain.
Brazilian dude
In Dutch we also have ‘wachten op’ en ‘afwachten’. There’s a subtle difference in meaning there too.
There is, in fact, an "a-" prefix which does more or less the opposite: turning a transitive verb into an intransitive (or reflexive) one.
Thus, "the house is abuilding" (= the house is being built). Plural: "the houses are abuilding", let me add, before any smartarses come back and tell me that of course a house is a building!
So, "they times they’re a-changing", means they are being changed… Bad example, for it would be weird that "time" undertook the task of changing itself. XD
[quote author=WonderingSpaniard link=board=grammar;num=1089239810;start=0#6 date=11/02/04 at 17:51:31]So, "they times they’re a-changing", means they are being changed… Bad example, for it would be weird that "time" undertook the task of changing itself.
I disagree, WS: not a bad example at all.
"The house is a-building" / "The house is being built" no more means that the house is building itself than does "La casa se está construyendo", whatever the literal meaning of that (erm…) construction.
The form is one which puts the focus on the activity and ignores agency. As I said earlier, it cancels out transitivity (one might almost say that it’s a kind of ergative). There is thus nothing about agency in the Bob Dylan line "The times they are a-changin’" either; certainly no implication of the times taking on any task.
In fact, I suspect that the a-(xxx)ing construction was originally a means of putting focus on the ongoing nature of the activity:
—For he had one only daughter, [...] and she lay a dying (Luke 8:42) —Christmas is a-coming and the goose is getting fat (traditional verse)
At times, too, perhaps no more than a metrical filler in verse and song:
I don’t know if the following observation is strictly relevant to the question posed by Wondering Spaniard, but if you are awaiting someone, then he might very well be your waiter….
[quote author=M._Henri_Day link=board=grammar;num=1089239810;start=0#9 date=11/03/04 at 12:52:52] if you are awaiting someone, then he might very well be your waiter….
There is thus nothing about agency in the Bob Dylan line "The times they are a-changin’" either; certainly no implication of the times taking on any task.
Yeah, that was my point. What I meant by "bad example" concerning Dylan’s line is that the other, wrong aprehension -namely, that time changes itself-, wouldn’t be correct even from a semantic perspective. Thus, an example with which one could have real problems would be "Bob is a-changing". For people do have the ability of changing themselves.
I know I haven’t made myself what one calls "clear". But I hope you understand. :D
Medical centers here have waiting rooms, not awaiting rooms, even though the occupants are awaiting news. The a-xxx formation sounds either archaic or provincial to contemporary ears: an elderly person from the rural area where I grew up would be more likely to state that he is a-waiting the doctor’s update. His grandchild would just be waiting.
[quote author=gailr link=board=grammar;num=1089239810;start=0#14 date=11/06/04 at 14:57:55]... an elderly person from the rural area where I grew up would be more likely to state that he is a-waiting the doctor’s update. His grandchild would just be waiting.
But surely the grandchild would not be «waiting the doctor’s update», but rather «waiting for the same» ?...
