# All Slavic languages: to be or not to be



## papillon

Hello everyone,
I was wondering about the use of the verb "to be" in various slavic languages. Specifically when used in a sentence like:

_"I am a student" _or "_She is very hungry_"
In Russian the use of "to be" in these cases is essentially gone. You would say
"Я студент" or "Она очень голодная".

I know that Ukrainian has a similar situation, but I wanted to see to what extent the verb "to be" is still used thoughout the slavic-speaking world

Thanks!
papillon


----------



## Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

As for Czech, the verb "být" (to be) is used in these instances as well. I.e. "(já) jsem student", "(ona) je velmi hladová" (in fact, the pronoun is often omitted instead as the information about person and number is already contained in the verb, which does not disappear).

The only situation when "být" can omitted is when it acts as an auxiliary verb in the past tense (which it always does; Russian doesn't use "быть" that way either, IIRC). In these cases, "být" is always omitted in the third person (both singular and plural), and can optionally be omitted in first person (singular and rarely plural).

So, for example, the past tense of "být" itself is:

I was: "Já jsem byl", "byl jsem", "já byl"
You were (sg): "Ty jsi byl", "byl jsi" (can be contracted to "tys byl" / "byls")
He was: "On byl", "byl" (long outmoded: "on jest byl"/"byl jest")
We were: "My jsme byli", "byli jsme", more rarely "my byli"
You were (pl): "Vy jste byli", "byli jste"
They were: "Oni byli", "byli" (long outmoded: "oni jsou byli" / "byli jsou")

where: já, ty, etc. = pronoun; jsem, jsi etc. = "být" as an auxiliary verb; byl/byli = past participle of "být"

Note: These examples are in the masculine animate gender, it gets a bit more complicated with other genders.

Also, these examples are equivalent in terms of information they express; there are only subtle differences in emphasis.


----------



## übermönch

Polish, Church Slavonic & Old Slavic do employ the "to be" auxilliary verb.

Russian, Ukrainian (& white Russian?) do not. It however exists, for instance in the translation of Hamlet's dilemma taken as the thread's name.


----------



## cyanista

*Belarusian* (Why do you keep calling it white Russian, übermönch? Do you imply that it's not a separate language or is it a calque from the German "Weißrussisch"? ) doesn't use "be" as an auxiliary verb for present actions (it does employ "be" in the past and future tenses). Just like its Eastern Slavic neighbours.


----------



## übermönch

cyanista said:
			
		

> *Belarusian* (Why do you keep calling it white Russian, übermönch? Do you imply that it's not a separate language or is it a calque from the German "Weißrussisch"? ) doesn't use "be" as an auxiliary verb for present actions (it does employ "be" in the past and future tenses). Just like its Eastern Slavic neighbours.


 Sorry if that was insulting. In German you can say both Belarusisch and Weißrussisch, but the latter is far more common. I thought it was the same way in English (well, wikipedia says White Russian actually _can_ refer to Belarusian ). B'sides the Brits and Germs call "Plattdütsch" "Low German" and "Niederdeutsch" respectively... OK, anyway, I will try to use _Belarusian _instead in the future.


----------



## papillon

Very interesting!
The situation in Czech where it is the _pronoun_ that gets dropped is similar to Latin (e.g the word  "ego"  wasn't used that much).

Just wanted to add that in Russian we go to great length to avoid using "to be" even when it would make sense
_he *is* a member of parliament  -- он *является* членом парламента
_and not _он есть член парламента. _The latter sounds a bit off (archaic?).

papillon


----------



## Anatoli

The verb быть is usually not used in the present tense in personal forms (it is implied) in East Slavic languages but is used in the past and future tense.

When the personal forms are used + infinitive the attribute in instrumental case

быть студент*ом*

я, ты, он был студент*ом

*буду ... студент*ом*.

Here are the archaic (used in the bible for example) forms of быть in the present tense. They are followed by nominative, not instrumental.

 Ед. число: 1. есмь; 2. еси; 3. есть;
Мн. число: 1. есмъ; 2. есте; 3. суть (соуть).


----------



## Seana

hello papillon,

I give you a verb 'być' - '_to be'_ - in Polish - inflected according to person, male/female/neuter gender and number, present_/_past/future simple tense.

I am - ja jestem - - ja był*em*/był*am* - ja będę
you are - ty jesteś - ty beł*eś*/był*aś *- ty będziesz
she/he/it - ona/on/ono jest - on/ona/ono był/była/było- będzie

We are - my jesteśmy - my byliśmy - my będziemy
you are - wy jesteście - wy byliście - wy będziecie
They are - oni są - oni byli- oni będą

Translation your sentences 

Ja jestem studentem.

_The first person "ja" - 'I' - very often - is omitted._

_Jestem studentem. _

_Ona jest bardzo głodna._


----------



## papillon

Thanks Seana

the Polish conjugation is very similar to the the archaic Russian forms described by Anatoli. Nowadays, in the Russian present tense these are lost and the only one left is "есть" (jest) (for all persons).
 >In a different thread it was mentioned that sometimes to a Russian ear many other Slavic languages sound  somewhat archaic, i.e. something we'd find in the Church liturgical texts and epic poems. I guess the use of "byt" is one of the reasons for that althoug there are more<


----------



## cajzl

I think the *Czech* conjugation is more similar to the archaic *Russian* forms than the Polish. The *Polish* forms have a derivative stem *jest*-.

Ед. число: 1. *есмь* *jsem jestem*; 2. *еси* *jsi jesteś*; 3. *есть* *je (< jest) jest*;
Мн. число: 1. *есмъ* *jsme jesteśmy*; 2. *есте* *jste jesteście*; 3. *суть (соуть)* *jsou (< sú) są*.


----------



## Jana337

> The only situation when "být" can omitted is when it acts as an auxiliary verb in the past tense (which it always does; Russian doesn't use "быть" that way either, IIRC). In these cases, "být" is always omitted in the third person (both singular and plural), and can optionally be omitted in first person (singular and rarely plural).
> 
> So, for example, the past tense of "být" itself is:
> 
> I was: "Já jsem byl", "byl jsem", "já byl"


I hasten to add that the contraction is not standard Czech. You can hear it a lot in Bohemia but not in the eastern part of the country, in Moravia and Silesia. Personally, I perceive it as grammatically wrong.

Jana


----------



## Sofianec

Bulgarian:

Аз съм - ти си - той/тя е  (Az sam - ti si - toy e)
Ние сме - вие сте - те са  (Nie sme - Vie ste - Te sa)

Very much used as in English.

Az sam student.
Tya e mnogo gladna.


----------



## janecito

cyanista said:
			
		

> Why do you keep calling it white Russian, übermönch? Do you imply that it's not a separate language or is it a calque from the German "Weißrussisch"?




Maybe it's a calque from Belorussian.  But even if it was, it would (probably) have to be capitalized (White Russian or Whiterussian). I must admit I've never heart of this term...



In Slovene it's the same – we use the verb TO BE (BITI) always:

1. as a full meaning verb

He is a student. > (On) *je* študent.

2. as an auxiliary (in all forms of past and future tenses and in all passive constructions)

He came. > (On) *je* prišel.
He will come. > (On) *bo* prišel.
The house was built. > Hiša *je bila* zgrajena.

The personal pronouns in Slovene, like in so many other languages (also non Slavic ones), can be omitted unless one wants to stress it.


----------



## hana T.

Hello,
In Slovak we use commonly to be - the infinitive is byť. Originally there should be pronoun + verb (conjugated)
Then the different forms are:
Singular:
1. ja som 
2. ty si
3. on (ona, ono) je   - i.e. he (she, it) is
Plural:
1. my sme
2. vy ste
3. oni (ony) sú         - i.e. they - men (they - women) are

Similarly to Czech or Polish, pronouns are often omitted. 
E.g.: I am hungry. (Ja) Som hladný.

Negative would be formed by simply putting "nie" in front of the verb:
ja NIE som, ty NIE si, on NIE je etc., 
and again, pronouns would be omitted:
I am not hungry - (Ja) Nie som hladný.

However in western-part dialect, we have a special form, which is not at all gramatically correct - we put "NENI" instead of "NIE". E.g. Neni som hladný.


----------



## Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I hasten to add that the contraction is not standard Czech. You can hear it a lot in Bohemia but not in the eastern part of the country, in Moravia and Silesia. Personally, I perceive it as grammatically wrong.
> 
> Jana



For the sake of clarity, I suppose you're talking about "já byl" and not "byl jsem", correct? If so, you're probably right - I don't find it completely "kosher" either and there are only a handful of situations I can think of where I'd use it, although I wouldn't go as far as to call it wrong, but that might just be my Praguish blood. "Byl jsem", though, is perfectly legitimate.


----------



## Jana337

Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! said:
			
		

> For the sake of clarity, I suppose you're talking about "já byl" and not "byl jsem", correct? If so, you're probably right - I don't find it completely "kosher" either and there are only a handful of situations I can think of where I'd use it, although I wouldn't go as far as to call it wrong, but that might just be my Praguish blood. "Byl jsem", though, is perfectly legitimate.


Of course! I am sorry; I should have deleted the other parts. 

Jana


----------



## Thomas1

Seana said:
			
		

> I am - ja jestem - - ja był*em*/był*am* - ja będę
> you are - ty jesteś - ty był*eś*/był*aś *- ty będziesz


A slip of a finger... 



> Translation your sentences
> 
> Ja jestem studentem.
> 
> _The first person "ja" - 'I' - very often - is omitted._


The same applies to the first person plural. 
I guess in vast majority cases I (and many Poles) use the constructon with implied subject.


----------



## Maja

In Serbian: to be - biti (jesam); not to be - ne biti 
 Sg.
 1. ja sam (I am) - ja nisam (I am not)
 2. ti si  (you are) - ti nisi  (you are not)
 3. on/ona/ono je (he/she/it is) - on nije (he is not)
 Pl.
 1. mi smo (we are) - mi nismo (we are not)
 2. vi ste (you are) - vi niste (you are not)
 3. oni su (they are) - oni nisu (they are not)

 So:
 "I* am *a student" - Ja *sam* student.
 "She* is *very hungry" - Ona *je* veoma gladna.

 "I* am not* a student" - Ja *nisam* student.
  "She* is not *very hungry" - Ona *nije* veoma gladna.


----------



## PERSEE

Hi everyone,

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what the verb "to be" looks like in slavic languages other than russian, especially in the present tense.

By the way, does someone know why and how this verb came to almost disappear in Russian (which is one of the curious beauties of the language...)? Is this "disappearance"* strictly a russian phenomenon?



* I don't know how to call it: in French, a verb with missing forms is called "verbe défectif" — defective verb?


----------



## PERSEE

papillon said:


> Very interesting!
> The situation in Czech where it is the _pronoun_ that gets dropped is similar to Latin (e.g the word  "ego"  wasn't used that much).




The pronouns do get dropped too in Spanish and Italian ("Ci sono andato ieri", "Vinimos ayer"). Instead, in French, it would be impossible, for many verb forms tend to be the same (or pronounced the same even if they are written differently, such as "tu es" and "il est").


----------



## Maroseika

PERSEE said:


> Hi everyone,
> By the way, does someone know why and how this verb came to almost disappear in Russian (which is one of the curious beauties of the language...)? Is this "disappearance"* strictly a russian phenomenon?
> * I don't know how to call it: in French, a verb with missing forms is called "verbe défectif" — defective verb?


In Russian it's called глагол с неполной парадигмой (verb with incomplete paradigm).
Present personal forms of this verb быть are substituted with the forms of another verb - есть. The latter, in its turn, doesn't have now any other forms but of the Present forms, even its infinitive is быть.
Therefore paradigmas of these 2 verbs coincide nowadays.
As far as I know exactly the same situation took place in the Ancient-Slavic: though paradigm was much wider, but still есть had only the personal forms in the Present Tense:
я есмь, ты еси, они суть, они (двое) есте, вы (двое) еста, мы (двое) есме... 
Aorist: бех, бе, бехове, бесте, беша..., 
Imperfect  беах, беаше, беахове, беашета, беаете, беахом...
Actually modern есть is just a form of the 3rd person of Present Tense.
Anyway, it's clear that to explain this phenomenon we should turn to pre-Slavic epoch, I guess. 
And of course other contemporary Slavic languages situation would be very interesting.


----------



## PERSEE

Maroseika said:


> In Russian it's called глагол с неполной парадигмой (verb with incomplete paradigm).
> Present personal forms of this verb быть are substituted with the forms of another verb - есть. The latter, in its turn, doesn't have now any other forms but of the Present forms, even its infinitive is быть.
> Therefore paradigmas of these 2 verbs coincide nowadays.
> As far as I know exactly the same situation took place in the Ancient-Slavic: though paradigm was much wider, but still есть had only the personal forms in the Present Tense:
> я есмь, ты еси, они суть, они (двое) есте, вы (двое) еста, мы (двое) есме...
> Aorist: бех, бе, бехове, бесте, беша...,
> Imperfect  беах, беаше, беахове, беашета, беаете, беахом...
> Actually modern есть is just a form of the 3rd person of Present Tense.
> Anyway, it's clear that to explain this phenomenon we should turn to pre-Slavic epoch, I guess.
> And of course other contemporary Slavic languages situation would be very interesting.



I'm amazed! It's almost like seing a ghost!


----------



## PERSEE

übermönch said:


> Polish, Church Slavonic & Old Slavic do employ the "to be" auxilliary verb.
> 
> Russian, Ukrainian (& white Russian?) do not. It however exists, for instance in the translation of Hamlet's dilemma taken as the thread's name.



I suppose "to be or not be" is not difficult to translate to Russian: Бытъ или не бытъ, I guess. But how about the French "Je pense, donc je suis" ("I think, therefore I am"). There must be some trick... (я существую ?)


----------



## Maroseika

PERSEE said:


> I suppose "to be or not be" is not difficult to translate to Russian: Бытъ или не бытъ, I guess. But how about the French "Je pense, donc je suis" ("I think, therefore I am"). There must be some trick... (я существую ?)


Exactly so!
Я мыслю, следовательно я существую.


----------



## Crescent

PERSEE said:


> I suppose "to be or not be" is not difficult to translate to Russian: Бытъ или не бытъ, I guess. But how about the French "Je pense, donc je suis" ("I think, therefore I am"). There must be some trick... (я существую ?)


 
Quelle surprise!  Je croyais toujours que cette phrase se traduirait comme: _Etre ou ne pas etre_, en francais, non?


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Crescent said:


> Quelle surprise!  Je croyais toujours que cette phrase se traduirait comme: _Etre ou ne pas etre_, en francais, non?



It does, but PERSEE was wondering how Descartes' famous quote "I think, therefore I am" would be translated into Russian


----------



## Crescent

Lemminkäinen said:


> It does, but PERSEE was wondering how Descartes' famous quote "I think, therefore I am" would be translated into Russian


Oh! Thank you very much, Lemmi. Now I get it!  I really should have read the post more carefully.. Hhm, seems like a pretty straight forward translation, doesn't it? You could have guessed it even if you didn't know, methinks..


----------



## El Torero

"to be or not to be" :] entire Polish generations laughed at Czechs saying that in their language  
I wonder if our language is as commonly laughed at there as their is here.


----------



## Jana337

El Torero said:


> "to be or not to be" :] entire Polish generations laughed at Czechs saying that in their language
> I wonder if our language is as commonly laughed at there as their is here.


Welcome to the forum and thanks for your sincerity.  Of course it is. 

Anyway, this thread is not directly about Hamlet (go here) and we shouldn't hijack it. 

Jana


----------



## PERSEE

If "je suis" doesn't really exist, that is if we have to resort to using "существую" instead, then philosophical/ontological stuff such as "je suis, j'existe", "l'être, l'existence, l'étant", must be quite untranslatable to Russian!

PD: Mind you, I'm not saying it's wrong. I love this and so many other peculiarities of the Russian language, which make it so special and beautiful. No present forms for the verb "to be", whereas you have two verbs "to be" in Spanish (ser/estar). Isn't that wonderful?!


----------

