I still find the second definition rather strange, how is it truly different from the first? Mallerd 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is a difference, but the description is rather off. I believe the original etymology of this usage is cognate with Gothic fra-, which basically meant 'away'. Compare frawairpan = throw away, reject (from wairpan = throw, cognate with Dutch werpen); frabugjan = sell (from bugjan = buy, trade, cognate with English buy); fradailjan = distribute (from dailjan = divide, cognate with Dutch delen). It therefore makes sense that the modern Dutch usage is related to the Gothic meaning, even though the Dutch suffix has become a bit of a mess because of mergers with other similar suffix (which had different meanings). Perhaps the way to divide the meanings and usages of this suffix is according to original etymology. --CodeCat 09:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I still find it difficult to leave this alone. For example, how does verkopen have a negative connotation? Furthermore, to do or to become what the stem (following this prefix) refers to is somewhat strange as well. Take verslaan for example. When you have slaan, it means to hit (something or someone). When you add the ver- prefix, does it mean you are doing or becoming "hitting someone or someone"? No, you are reporting. I appreciate your explanation CodeCat. If I'm right, -er means thoroughly and ver- means "away". Still there are many words in the derived terms that I can't really place in either category. In the away category, I can see how many verbs place the effect of the verb outside of the subject. Perhaps that's how the negative connotation has originated, because the subject-object relation has something to do with power (and to some extent arrogance). I also suggest to delete the "nouns" section of derived terms, those are nothing different than the verbs of course. I will not post all my questions at once, I feel it will be too chaotic. User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- verkopen has the 'away' meaning, but to understand how you must know that kopen originally meant 'to trade'. This meaning is still found in words such as koopman. verkopen was just a way of specifying that you were 'trading away', hence selling, and this became the regular word for this purpose. I am not entirely sure how to describe a word like verslaan. I get the feeling that in this case ver- means 'thoroughly'. verslaan means not just to hit someone, but to beat them up completely. From this you would get the modern meaning 'to beat at a game'. However as for the meaning 'to report' I am not sure how this fits. I think that it might be a back-formation from the noun verslag, but I don't see how this word came to be. --CodeCat 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, now we are talking in terms the way they used to be. I thought given definitions were supposed to reflect meaning of the present. If other, it would be designated as obsolete or archaic? Anyway, I clearly forgot that verslaan had 2 meanings. Verplegen refers to plegen in which I can see no evidence of taking care of or any similar action to nursing. :( User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 00:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that history isn't always useful, as this isn't an etymological dictionary. But when trying to figure out the meaning of a suffix like this it's often useful to look at older meanings. It can help you understand the relationship between two uses of the suffix, which may seem unrelated and random at first. However I am not sure how to get hold of all meanings of ver-, other than to just start listing words using it and seeing which meanings you can discern. Perhaps another existing dictionary can help here.
And as for plegen, the original meaning is 'to risk, endanger', which is found in Old English pleon (which is a cognate). Also consider plicht and its English cognate plight, which is derived from the verb just as zicht is from zien. --CodeCat 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)