"Røre" vs. "røre ved"
The following is a reply of mine to a question in a sentence discussion. If something is unclear, please don't hesitate to ask about in the comments, and I will clarify the post.
A Learner Asked: What is the difference between rører (infinitive røre) and rører ved (infinitve røre ved)?
Well, it's one of those things caused by the eternal language change. Originally, røre was an intransitive verb, meaning it took only a subject and no object. Similar to how to sleep takes only a subject (you can't say I sleep you) but to punch is transitive (I punch you, subject and object). So in order to attach an object, you had to use a modifier, similar to how you can say I cause you to sleep (but not quite).
Another variant is berøre from the prefix
be- which is a (no longer productive) modifier to turn a verb into a transitive verb (similar to smile - besmile in English. I besmile you - I smile upon/towards you). This prefix is found in a LOT of verbs in modern Danish, similar to Dutch and German (my research tells me).
Today, however, røre is used by many people as a transitive verb with the same meaning as røre ved and berøre. To me, it still sounds a bit strange, but that's just how it is :)
In any case this sentence is a bit confusing, because it sounds like a command, but it's actually in the present tense, not imperative. I.e. it means you are not touching it, as a statement, not do not touch it which would be (du) rør ikke ved den.
What's really confusing about it is that we learned before that "ved" means "know(s)". And when you hover the mouse cursor over "rører ved", a tooltip shows up informing you that "rører" means "touch", "ved" means "know" and "rører ved" together means "touch". And I couldn't really figure out how a combination of "to touch" and "to know" could mean "to touch". Now that I understand that "ved" is (in this context) obviously a preposition meaning "at" or "next to", it makes a lot more sense.
And for the German speakers: I guess "rører ved" can be compared to "an etw. rühren" (which is an odd way to say "etw. berühren" [to touch sth.]).
Ah, yes.... "ved" does have several meanings. There is the one that means to know, "at vide". But there is also the word "ved" in the meaning "by" or "at", e.g. "huset ved vejen" (the house by the road) or "klinikken ved skolen" (the clinic at the school). I suppose in this case the use of "ved" is to indicate that the "touching" occurs "in the area around" the hat or something to that effect.
I was just wondering, considering it's a similar question, whether there's a big difference between the verbs "leger" and "spiller". They are both translated as "to play" in the tree, is there any marked or subtle difference between the two?
Also loving the course so far :) Thanks for all the hard work you've put in.
- At lege (the verb) or en leg (the noun) is usually unorganized, with few or no rules, and often spontaneous.
- At spille or et spil has rules, is organized, and planned.
So children in the yard leger, or what you do with a pet, or in the pool. A board game is et spil, and so is a computer game. The verb and nouns are always used in pairs, so man leger en leg and man spiller et spil -- both are one plays a game in English.