Mot means against and towards? Is there a grammatical reason or explanation for this. x'D
The general meaning of mot is about movement in a certain direction. You have similar tendencies for against in English in expressions like lean against something, swim against the current etc.
Makes sense, so it's more of something that will make sense in the right contexts? ;u;
Yes, I guess it's always like that: prepositions always cover things slightly differently in each language, even when the languages are very close.
I'll fall back on Webster ... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/against ... but in the case of the wall it's "in the direction of AND into contact with" (my emphasis) ... which isn't quite the same thing as running TOWARD a reindeer. The primary definitions are 1) in opposition to (someone or something) and 2) in competition with (someone or something).
I don't see any 'opposite' in that, and I never said it works quite the same, I very cautiously said similar tendencies.
I think Arnauti's description works very well, and 'against' does seem as versatile in English but it still depends on context. A similar example could be when an army 'marches against the enemy'. Yes there is some opposition implied from this but I think it mostly implies a movement toward something.
Tack. I found this useful. I suspect it is only part of the answer but is helping me visualise this word better. What is the word for "away"? That would be a direction again but I am guessing you cannot also use mot or it would be most confusing as to where that darned wolf was running to!
It's more like a way of thinking about it that may be helpful. Some people just accept the idea that prepositions are weird and have to be learned by heart, but personally I like to have this kind of mental hooks to sort of hang the concepts from in my head. So I'm just suggesting it as a way of thinking of it.
'away' is bort (with direction) or borta (with location).
E.g. Hon är borta She's away (she's not here)
Hon springer bort 'She runs away' (moving away from here)
But there are more ways of saying 'run away': springa iväg ('run away', 'run off') or springa ifrån ('run from', 'outrun').
Tack. Yes I think it is likely to just take time for me. Time and repetition for pattern recognition. But that said, I am like you in that I like to have an idea of how or why a word works the way it does. Your explanation above definitely helped me to understand the intention or underlying meaning of "mot". Also a good explanation of "away'. It makes sense that there is several ways of expressing it!
It was used earlier to mean 'against meat' which is not related to direction unless of course a sort of moral direction. Is that the same or is there a different meaning there?
mot can mean both "against" and "towards", and I would consider them different meanings.
I answered deer instead of reindeer. Is there a different word for deer?
Because that would be "till renen" and imply the wold ran towards and up to the location of the reindeer, whereas this just implies that the wolf is running in the direction of the reindeer.
I'm thinking the same thing. It seems to me that "toward" and "at" could be used interchangeably without any distortion of the meaning.
Just wanted to confirm that I apparently added this five months ago but didn't think of checking the thread to mention it.
I would imagine because they're the same direction, if you consider "against" not as "from".
It's likely not the case here specifically, but it's actually very common for opposites to derive from the same word etymologically.
'Mot' vs 'till' pleaee?
1.Ankan simmar till flickan.
- Ankan simmar mot flickan.
What is the difference?
There's no difference in meaning - just different spellings in different regions.
I believe that correct word here would rather be 'till', I'm pretty sure the deer is what he is aiming for...
By that logic, one should never use mot or "towards", since you're always aiming at your destination when going towards it.
So how would you say 'The wolf runs against the reindeer' as if they were having a race. Unlikely I know, but technically both could be correct. It is just a matter of interpretation?
Yeah, I think context would make it pretty clear, but you're right - it's the same way. :)