Re: shifting usage of "want"

2008/4/16, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com <MorphemeAddict@...>:
> In a message dated 4/16/2008 07:40:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
>
> ruittenb@GMAIL.COM writes:
>
>
>  > Hij kon niet komen, want hij was ziek.
>  > He couldn't come, because he was ill.
>  >
>  > In which "want" is clearly a conjunction.
>  >
>  > Lately the following usage is observed (but still considered
>  > wrong by some/many):
>  >
>  > De kast heeft op zolder gestaan,
>  >   want niet groot genoeg voor onze behoeften.
>  > The cupboard stood in the attic,
>  >   because not big enough for our needs.
>  >
>  > De haring is meer dan niet lekker, want bedorven.
>  > The herring is more than not tasty, because spoiled.
>  >
>  > Deze snoepjes zijn erg gezond, want met vitamine C.
>  > These sweets are very healthy, because with vitamin C.
>  >
>  >
>
>
> "Want" in these sentences, at least, can be translated as "being".
>
>  I find that a weird shift indeed.
>
>  stevo   </HTML>
>

Good point. However, there are also cases in which "want"
cannot be translated with "being".
It took me a bit of searching on the web to find some examples:


Wij reizen met het openbaar vervoer want geen auto.
We travel by public transport because no car.

Was dit een constatering, want met eigen ogen gezien,
  of een vraag, want geen idee waarover je praat?
Was this a conclusion, because seen with your own eyes,
  or a question, because no idea what you are talking about?

Steek je hoofd binnen in Floralux (want geen bloemen in Frankrijk).
Put your head inside Floralux (because no flowers in France).
= Go visit Floralux, (...)


The first two sentences suggest the meaning "having" or "not having".
The last example has a different (implied) subject in the main and
subordinate clauses and therefore cannot readily be translated with
"being" or "having", but needs something like "there not being flowers
in France".

Some kind of dirty shortcut, if you ask me.

René

Replies