# Croatian/Serbian (BCS): Biti and htjeti/hteti - auxiliary verbs



## GoranBcn

How many auxiliar verbs are there in Croatian and Serbian?

I've learnt that there were two of them *biti* and *htjeti/hteti.*


*BITI*

*naglašeni nesvršeni

*jesam
jesi
jest(e)
jesmo
jeste
jesu

*nenaglašeni nesvršeni

*sam 
si
je
smo
ste
su

*svršeni prezent

*budem
budeš
bude
budemo
budete
budu

*HTJETI*

*naglašeni nesvršeni

*hoću
hoćeš
hoće
hoćemo
hoćete
hoće

*nenaglašeni nesvršeni 

*ću
ćeš
će
ćemo
ćete
će

*svršeni prezent* 

ht(j)ednem
ht(j)edneš
ht(j)edne
ht(j)ednemo
ht(j)ednete
ht(j)ednu

After speaking with some Croatian/Serbian teachers they said there were only two (the ones I've mentioned above). But according to some others there are three of them: *biti*, *htjeti/hteti* and *jesam

*Can anyone tell me which one of these theories is correct?


----------



## venenum

If you look at what you've written, you'll see you've answered you question yourself.  




> *BITI
> 
> naglašeni nesvršeni
> 
> jesam
> jesi
> jest(e)
> jesmo
> jeste
> jesu
> 
> *


 
So, JESAM is 1st person singular of BITI.


----------



## GoranBcn

I know but why do they say there are three auxilary verbs then?


----------



## venenum

That's a mystery to me, too...
I know I was always taught at school that there are only 2 auxiliaries in Croatian, _biti _and _htjeti_... 
It's a possibility that your sources are mistaken - I don't see any other explanation. (It does happen - it took me 'till college to discover some things concerning German I'd learned in elementary school are totally wrong)


----------



## alby

Hi
Croatian has only 2 auxilary verbs *Biti *and *Htjeti, *both of them have 3 forms (naglašen nesvršen, nenaglašen nesvršen i svršeni prezent) and *jesam *is one form of naglašen nesvršen verb *Biti*, Venenum told you correctly it's 1st person singular of BITI.

Nataša


----------



## natasha2000

Hi,

I vaguely remember that I was taught at school about an auxiliary jesam/biti, as if it were one verb with two forms. Therfore, from jesam would be: jesam, jesi, jeste, itd. and from biti would be all other forms that include bi...., i.e. 
budem
budeš
bude
budemo
budete
budu

Or, bio/la in pluscuaperfect

ja sam bio otishao. But I am positive that this is almost out of use nowadays.


----------



## blandoso

In Serbian there are definitely three auxiliar verbs:
jesam
biti
hteti*

*


----------



## erin

There are definitely 2 auxiliary verbs in Croatian as well as in Serbian, which are *biti / htjeti* in Croatian and *biti / hteti* in Serbian. Never heard that jesam is an auxiliary.
You may be confused becuase there are two verbs for *biti* in Spanish, *ser* and *estar*. "_Jesam_" can only be _soy_ or _estoy_, nothing else.
Hope I helped a bit  .


----------



## natasha2000

erin said:


> There are definitely 2 auxiliary verbs in Croatian as well as in Serbian, which are *biti / htjeti* in Croatian and *biti / hteti* in Serbian. Never heard that jesam is an auxiliary.
> You may be confused becuase there are two verbs for *biti* in Spanish, *ser* and *estar*. "_Jesam_" can only be _soy_ or _estoy_, nothing else.
> Hope I helped a bit  .


 
Are you talking to me, or to Goran? If it's me, please reread my post. I said:



> about an auxiliary jesam/biti, as if it were *one verb with two forms*.


 
I never claimed there are two verbs biti.

And it has nothing to do with ser &estar. Ser&estar have two completely different meanings and uses. 

If it is Goran, then, sorry. 
But anyway, I doubt that Goran mixes up with Spanish, because simply there is no relation between these two.


----------



## erin

natasha2000 said:


> Are you talking to me, or to Goran? If it's me, please reread my post. I said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed there are two verbs biti.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with ser &estar. Ser&estar have two completely different meanings and uses.
> 
> If it is Goran, then, sorry.
> But anyway, I doubt that Goran mixes up with Spanish, because simply there is no relation between these two.


 
 
I was referring to Goran of course otherwise I would quote you as I'm doing now. And please don't tell me that biti does nothing to do with ser and estar. If it doesn’t how would you then translate these two Spanish verbs in Croatian, I really wonder.


----------



## natasha2000

erin said:


> I was referring to Goran of course otherwise I would quote you as I'm doing now. And please don't tell me that biti does nothing to do with ser and estar. If it doesn’t how would you then translate these two Spanish verbs in Croatian, I really wonder.


 
Erin, you did not quote anyone. And since only Goran and I have Spanish exposed as a spoken language here, I had my doubts and I clearly expressed them. Besides, I said I am sorry if I was wrong.

As far as _ser&estar_ is concerned, it is translated as _biti_ to Croatian and to Serbian. Maybe I did not make myself clear enough, sorry. What I wanted to say is that the fact that there are two verbs BITI (ser&estar) in Spanish, does not have anything to do with Goran's doubt about the number of auxiliary verbs in S/C, because as you already know (I assume that you already know, because it would be stupid to speak about something you don't know, wouldn't it?), _ser_ and _estar_ cannot be used interchangeably, but there is a very clear difference in using them in Spanish. I wouldn't like to go off topic here, so I will stop here, and if you need (or wish) any furter explanation, please contact me by PM. 

Saludos!


----------



## lidia1201

Tri pomocna glagola u srpskom jeziku su: jesam, hteti i biti.
Glagol "*jesam*" nema infinitiv i ima samo PREZENT:

jesam (sam)        
jesi (si)                    
jeste (je)     

jesmo (smo)
jeste (ste)
jesu (su)

Glagol "*hteti*" ima sve oblike osim trpnog prideva.
PREZENT
hoću (ću)                 
hoćes (ćeš)               
hoće (će)                

hoćemo (ćemo)
hoćete (ćete)
hoće (će)

IMPERATIV
/                           
htedni                    
-neka hoće- 

 htednimo           
 htednite
 -neka hoće-

AORIST
hteh (htedoh)         
hte (htede)            
hte (htede)            

htesmo (htedosmo)
hteste (htedoste)
hteše (htedoše)

IMPERFEKAT
hoćah                  
hoćaše                 
hoćaše                

hoćasmo
hoćaste
hoćahu

GLAGOLSKI PRILOG SADASNJI: hoteći    
GLAGOLSKI PRILOG PROSLI: htevši, htev

Glagol "*biti*" ima sve oblike osim trpnog prideva.
PREZENT
budem              
budeš                
bude                

budemo
budete
budu

IMPERATIV
/                       
budi                   
-neka bude-        

budimo
budite
-neka budu-

AORIST
bih                  
bi                    
bi                    

bismo
biste
biše

IMPERFEKAT
bejah, beh            
bejaše, beše         
bejaše, beše         

bejasmo, besmo
bejaste, beste
bejahu, behu

GLAGOLSKI PRILOG SADASNJI: budući
GLAGOLSKI PRILOG PROSLI: bivši, biv

PERFEKAT se gradi pomocu enklitickih (skracenih) oblika prezenta glagola "jesam".
FUTUR se gradi pomocu enklitickih oblika prezenta glagola "hteti".
FUTUR EGZAKTNI se gradi pomocu prezenta glagola "biti".
PLUSKVAMPERFEKAT se gradi pomocu oblika imperfekta ili perfekta glagola "biti".
POTENCIJAL se gradi pomocu aorista glagola "biti".


----------



## natasha2000

Thank you, Lidia, now I understand why I had this jesam/biti in mind. I knew something was wrong with this _jesam_, but I couldn't explain why. That's right, it has NO infinitive, and it has only present. It's like deffective verb must or can in English.

Hvala na iscrpnom objašnjenju.


----------



## lidia1201

natasha2000 said:


> Hvala na iscrpnom objašnjenju.



Nema na cemu, bilo mi je zadovoljstvo


----------



## venenum

And there's one difference between Croatian and Serbian: in Croatian, we don't separate _biti _and _jesam_, we treat _jesam_ as the 1st perston singular from _biti_ (what it actually, on my account, is)


----------



## papillon

natasha2000 said:


> That's right, it has NO infinitive, and it has only present. It's like deffective verb must or can in English.


A little off topic: You're still doing better than Russian. By the time you get to Russian, the only form of jesam left is "jest" (есть), nothing else.


----------



## natasha2000

papillon said:


> A little off topic: You're still doing better than Russian. By the time you get to Russian, the only form of jesam left is "jest" (есть), nothing else.


 
Excuse me?

I'm sorry, but I am afraid I don't get what is exactly that you want to say. I am still doing better?  Better? I do not even speak Russian.. Can you please elaborate a little bit? Thank you.


----------



## jester.

natasha2000 said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I am afraid I don't get what is exactly that you want to say. I am still doing better?  Better? I do not even speak Russian.. Can you please elaborate a little bit? Thank you.



He wanted to say that you Craotians are still doing better with Coratian, for you have a partly defective verb, whereas in Russian the only remaining form of быть is есть.


----------



## papillon

Oh, sorry for the confusion, Natasha. I meant "you" as in the speakers of Serbian. As j3str3 said, I simply meant that your (!!) defective verb Jesam becomes REALLY deficient in the Russian language.
P.s. I was referring specifically to Jesam, because we do have several forms for byt', many sound essentially the same as in Srpski.
Best


----------



## natasha2000

j3st3r said:


> He wanted to say that you Craotians are still doing better with Coratian, for you have a partly defective verb, whereas in Russian the only remaining form of быть is есть.


 


papillon said:


> Oh, sorry for the confusion, Natasha. I meant "you" as in the speakers of Serbian. As j3str3 said, I simply meant that your (!!) defective verb Jesam becomes REALLY deficient in the Russian language.
> P.s. I was referring specifically to Jesam, because we do have several forms for byt', many sound essentially the same as in Srpski.
> Best


 
I thought it was something like this, but I wanted to be sure. 
Thank you for the explanation, both of you. Thanks.


----------



## GoranBcn

erin said:


> You may be confused becuase there are two verbs for *biti* in Spanish, *ser* and *estar*. "_Jesam_" can only be _soy_ or _estoy_, nothing else. Hope I helped a bit  .



Bok Erin,

I'm not confused at all regarding *SER* and *ESTAR*. They don't have anything to do with my question above. 

Hvala ti u svakom slučaju.

Pozdrav,

Goran


----------



## Mayyya

Back to the topic: 
What was the verdict for the number of auxiliaries in Serbian/Croatian? Two or three? How shall we cope with "BITI"? Are "jesam" and "budem" actually two different forms of "BITI" or two completely different auxiliaries?

In my view, we are talking of only two auxiliaries "biti" and "hteti" which have different forms, which were kindly listed by others in this discussion. On the other hand, "biti" has different forms - such as: jesam , budem, etc. We can compare it with "to be" in the English language which has forms "be. was. were. been. am, is, are" and yet, we don't call these forms different auxiliaries but only different forms of "to be".

As far as I can remember from the History of English there is the common stem in all Indo-European languages of the verb "to be", which still can be traced in the infinitive forms of this verb in all European languages e.g. BE (Old English- BEON),  German - Ich bin; S/Croatian : BITI etc.


----------



## natasha2000

Mayyya said:


> As far as I can remember from the History of English there is the common stem in all Indo-European languages of the verb "to be", which still can be traced in the infinitive forms of this verb in all European languages e.g. BE (Old English- BEON), German - Ich bin; S/Croatian : BITI etc.


 
And how do you explain then the existence of two verbs biti in Spanish, which by the way, do not look like be at all? And in other Romanic languages, the form of the verb be does not have anything to do with BE, BEON,BIN, BITI, etc.

ser estar
etre
essere


----------



## beclija

That is two questions: why do the Romance words not look like BE-/BI- or anything?

I don't think there is much to be explained. The verb always had two sets of forms, one with "es(t)" or something similar, and the other with "bi-", cf. English to be vs. he is, German ich bin vs. er ist. (I am/he is). Somwhere on the way to Latin that pattern got regularized by applying "es-" to all forms. That kind of thing happens all over the place.

Why does Spanish have two verbs? 

Those don't have any connection in terms of their difference in meaning with biti vs. jesam even if we were to accept that these are distinct. Anyway, even in other languages there are more ways to express "to be": "Војводина *лежи/**се **налази *на југу панонске равнине" - taking a wild guess, i suggest that estar has developed out of such, possibly from a verb like "stati".

edit: etymonline conforms my guess: 

_stay
"to remain," 1440, from M.Fr. estai-, stem of ester "to stay or stand," from O.Fr., from L. stare "to stand" (cf. It. stare, Sp. estar*sta- "to stand" "to stand, to be"), from PIE base *sta- "to stand".

_Also, it just occured to me that even Spanish has the b-form in "fui". 

_be
__O.E. beon, beom, bion (...) The modern verb represents the merger of two once-distinct verbs, the "b-root" represented by be and the am/was verb, which was itself a conglomerate. The "b-root" is from PIE base *bheu-, *bhu- "grow, come into being, become," and in addition to Eng. it yielded Ger. present first and second person sing. (bin, bist, from O.H.G. bim "I am," bistesse (fui "I was," etc.), O.C.S. byti "be," Gk. phu- "become," O.Ir. bi'u "I am," Lith. bu'ti "to be," Rus. byt' "to be," (...)_ So the question is basically: did they merge in Slavic as they did in Romance and Germanic? I would have said yes.


----------



## Mayyya

Now we are again off the topic, but the subject of Language history is extremely interesting as well! Unfortuantely, since I graduated ten years ago I haven't had the opportunity (nor time) to refresh my memory /knowledge but anyone interested should read an excellent book by Andre Martinet "Indoeuropeans" which thoroughly explains the common origins of peoples and their languages living in this vast region long, long time ago!

I quote Beclia:
...So the question is basically: did they merge in Slavic as they did in Romance and Germanic? I would have said yes.

from Wikipedia :
" Geographically, the "eastern" languages belong in the Satem group: Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (but not including Tocharian and Anatolian); and the "western" languages represent the Centum group: Germanic, Italic, and Celtic " 

As far as I remember, the best example was 100 - Sto vs. Hundred etc. 

We must be very patient and cautious while discussing these things, since there were many other language changes that took place in the course of time! For example, in Germanic languages there were a few great consonant shifts which can be seen in the pairs such as German wasser - water. 

So you might again ask about Spanish, but being here in the complete fog, I would direct you to reference books! (talking about myself now : little knowledge is a dangerous thing !)
cheers!


----------



## natasha2000

Mayyya said:


> (talking about myself now : little knowledge is a dangerous thing !)
> cheers!


 
As long as one is ready to admit it, no, it is not dangerous, it is rather inspiring, since it pushes you to learn more

Thank you , Beclija and Mayya for your explanation. I really do not know much about that far history of indo-european languages, and it is really a mistery for me different forms of the werb to be in all those languages. Maybe I should look for that book,Mayya... 

Chau!


----------



## Mayyya

Thanks for taking interested - and  iff you happen to have time the book is a must. (iff = as a math term)
Bye


----------



## blandoso

Da li je od "jesti" "jesam"?


----------



## beclija

Nije. jesti:jedem itd.


----------



## natasha2000

blandoso said:


> Da li je od "jesti" "jesam"?


Bas je u tome ovaj glagol poseban.
nema infinitiv. samo prezent.


----------



## Mayyya

...sto bi lingvisti rekli, infinitiv od "jesam ..." je BITI, Tako bar pise u gramatikama, tako da nije kod tog glagola nista izuzetno. The same applies to "to be" which is the infinitive form of "am, is, are, was, were, been"


----------



## lidia1201

Mayyya said:


> ...sto bi lingvisti rekli, infinitiv od "jesam ..." je BITI, Tako bar pise u gramatikama, tako da nije kod tog glagola nista izuzetno. The same applies to "to be" which is the infinitive form of "am, is, are, was, were, been"



A koji je onda infinitiv od "budem"? Sta kazu lingvisti?


----------



## natasha2000

lidia1201 said:


> A koji je onda infinitiv od "budem"? Sta kazu lingvisti?


biti


----------



## lidia1201

Pa znam ja, ali neki uporno tvrde da glagol "jesam" ima infinitiv i da je to takodje "biti".


----------



## natasha2000

lidia1201 said:


> Pa znam ja, ali neki uporno tvrde da glagol "jesam" ima infinitiv i da je to takodje "biti".


 
Ne razumem cemu ta ironija. Ako imas nesto da kazes i da doprineses ovoj diskusiji, na konstruktivan nacin i sa argumentima, samo izvoli, dobro si dosla, pa cak i ako se ne slazes sa nekim ovde, nije zabranjeno. 
Za to postoje ovi forumi, da ljudi diskutuju i nauce nesto jedni od drugih. Nemoj te insinuacije i ironije. Stvarno nije u redu.


----------



## Maja

Pa koliko se ja sećam, nas su učili da u Srpskom postoje tri pomoćna glagola: *jesam*, *biti* i *hteti*. Od toga JESAM ima samo oblike prezenta (sam, si, je, smo, ste, su), BITI ima sve oblike osim trpnog gl. prideva, i HTETI takođe ima sve oblike osim trpnog prideva.


----------



## natasha2000

Maja said:


> Pa koliko se ja sećam, nas su učili da u *s*rpskom postoje tri pomoćna glagola: *jesam*, *biti* i *hteti*. Od toga JESAM ima samo oblike prezenta (sam, si, je, smo, ste, su), BITI ima sve oblike osim trpnog gl. prideva, i HTETI takođe ima sve oblike osim trpnog prideva.


 
Toga se i ja sećam. 
(Majo, brka ti se engleski sa srpskim ...)


----------



## Maja

E da, hvala


----------



## lidia1201

natasha2000 said:


> Ne razumem cemu ta ironija. Ako imas nesto da kazes i da doprineses ovoj diskusiji, na konstruktivan nacin i sa argumentima, samo izvoli, dobro si dosla, pa cak i ako se ne slazes sa nekim ovde, nije zabranjeno.
> Za to postoje ovi forumi, da ljudi diskutuju i nauce nesto jedni od drugih. Nemoj te insinuacije i ironije. Stvarno nije u redu.



Nisam htela da zvucim ironicno, izvinjavam se, samo sam htela da cujem sta oni misle o tome sto i "jesam" i "budem" imaju za infinitiv "biti". A vec sam bila doprinela (nadam se) ovoj diskusiji "iscrpnim objasnjenjem" 
Nadam se da ne zvucim ironicno, ponovo, zaista mi nije namera.


----------



## natasha2000

lidia1201 said:


> Nisam htela da zvucim ironicno, izvinjavam se, samo sam htela da cujem sta oni misle o tome sto i "jesam" i "budem" imaju za infinitiv "biti". A vec sam bila doprinela (nadam se) ovoj diskusiji "iscrpnim objasnjenjem"
> Nadam se da ne zvucim ironicno, ponovo, zaista mi nije namera.


 
Sorry, naravno da jesi. 

S obzirom da Mayyya ima drugaciji stav od tebe i nekoliko nas ovde (da je biti infinitiv od jesam), bilo bi lepo od nje da nam obrazlozi malo detaljnije tu svoju tvrdnju.


----------



## venenum

Switching back to English, for the sake of others who may be interested in the discussion. 
If I may give my contribution: We were taught in school, that Croatian language has only two auxiliaries, _biti_ and _htjeti_, and _biti_ is an irregular verb, whose rooth changes in the present tens, and becomes _jesam._ 
To prove this, for all Thomases of this forum: what's the future tense of _jesam? _Why, it's _biti ću_. What's the past tense of jesam? Why, it's _bio sam._ And how is this different from _biti?_ It has the same root, the same meaning... So it has to be the same verb, only with irregular present tense.

Prebacujem se na Engleski zbog ostalih koje ova rasprava možda zanima. 
Ako bih smjela dati svoj doprinos: nas su u školi učili da u hrvatskom jeziku postoje samo dva pomoćna glagola, _biti _i _htjeti, _a biti je nepravilan glagol, čiji korijen se mijenja u prezentu, i postaje _jesam_. A kao dokaz, za sve _nevjerne Tome_  ovoga foruma: kako glasi futur od _jesam_? Pa _biti ću._ A kako glasi perfekt od jesam? Pa _bio sam. _I po čemu se to razlikuje od _biti?_ Ima isti korijen, isto značenje... Stoga to mora biti isti glagol, s nepravilnom tvorbom prezenta. 


Poison


----------



## natasha2000

venenum said:


> Switching back to English, for the sake of others who may be interested in the discussion.
> If I may give my contribution: We were taught in school, that Croatian language has only two auxiliaries, _biti_ and _htjeti_, and _biti_ is an irregular verb, whose rooth changes in the present tens, and becomes _jesam._
> To prove this, for all Thomases of this forum: what's the future tense of _jesam? _Why, it's _biti ću_. What's the past tense of jesam? Why, it's _bio sam._ And how is this different from _biti?_ It has the same root, the same meaning... So it has to be the same verb, only with irregular present tense.


 
I see your point. And to be honest, I agree with you on that. As a matter of fact, I have never had it clear, why does jesam is counted as a separate verb. But this seems that is taught in Serbian schools... On the other hand, it has been a long time since I went to school, and recently I realized that there have been made many changes in linguistic rules, so I wouldn't be surprised that now schools in Serbia teach that there are two auxiliary verbs - biti and hteti.


----------



## Mayyya

I also remember the story about "jesam, biti, hteti" from the primary school. While I was studying English language we had (too) much linguistic input and there was a fine explanation on the LINKING verb "to be", which actually only links subject with a noun/adjective/preposition&place, time,/ number(for age) - or just to quote one of the definitions found on the net:


> _*Linking verbs*_ do not express action. Instead, they connect the subject of the verb to additional information about the subject. Source




If you swich the meaning of "to be" in different tenses and for different persons you get the same meaning = the form TO BE is actually a general term, as well as BITI for jesam, etc. While I am NOT a professor of Serbian language I might not be competent to explain this in terms of Serbian linguistics terminology. 

If I apply mathematical reasoning though,  I may prove myself wrong, as you kindly suggested, ...just bear with me:

If BITI is the same form as JESAM and BITI, they (sam and biti) should have the same translation, or at least the meaning, but they seem not to:
"Ja jesam nastavnik." I AM a teacher.
"Kad ja BUDEM nastavnik, ja cu..." When I BECOME a teacher, I ...
...alas, while Einstein would be delighted by this, you guys might not... I am afraid we are back to square one! 
Cheers


----------



## Maja

venenum said:


> kako glasi futur od _jesam_? Pa _biti ću._ A kako glasi perfekt od jesam? Pa _bio sam. _I po čemu se to razlikuje od _biti?_ Ima isti korijen, isto značenje... Stoga to mora biti isti glagol, s nepravilnom tvorbom prezenta.


Kao što rekoh, nas su učili da JESAM nema ni futur ni perfekat niti bilo koji drugi gl. oblik osim prezenta (čak ni infinitiv). Dok glagol BITI, makar u srpskom, ima oblik prezenta koji glasi:
1. budem 1. budemo
2. budeš  2. budete
3. bude   3. budu
Ja mislim da je pretpostavka da su to DVA glagola, zasnovana upravo na tome što jedan glagol ne može da ima dva POTPUNO različita oblika prezenta. To je bar moj zaključak. 
Sigurno da ima takvih slučajeva u drugim jezicima, ali ne i u našem!


venenum said:


> Switching back to English, for the sake of others who may be interested in the discussion.


I agree and apologize for writing only in Serbian. So:
As I already said, we were taught in schools that the verb JESAM has no future tense, nor perfect tense nor any other verbal form beside present (including infinitive). While the verb BITI, at least in Serbian, has a present tense form:
1. budem 1.  budemo
2. budeš  2. budete
3. bude   3. budu
I think that the assumption that they are in fact two different verbs is based on the fact that one verb cannot have two completely different forms of present. That is, at least, my conclusion.
There are probable such cases in other languages, but  not in ours.


----------



## beclija

> "Kad ja BUDEM nastavnik, ja cu...


You know that is a pretty free translation. More literal would "when I will be..."
So here we go - same verb.


----------



## GoranBcn

Mislim da ih u hrvatskom smatraju kao dva pomoćna glagola a u srpskom tri... To je to.


----------



## lidia1201

"Kad ja budem nastavnik ja cu..." 

Ja mislim da bi trebalo da se kaze: "Kada ja *budem bio* nastavnik, ja cu..."
To je FUTUR II (egzaktni) kojim se oznacava nerealizovana radnja za koju govornik pretpostavlja da ce se desiti u buducnosti, pre neke druge buduce radnje ili istovremeno sa njom.


----------



## Mayyya

We could list myriads of examples, such as: "Kada budem ljuta, recicu ti" - although the deep structure ( check the Transformational grammar, Chomsky) of this sentence would be "Kada budem bila ljuta..." which is exactly what I was pointing at - BITI, as the linking verb.

Now, off the topic, again: When I teach the verb TO BE, I tend to explain that this was probably one of the first abstract verbs, carrying no meaning, but just linking ideas. So the first dialogues would be:
I be (a) caveman. (noun)
I be rich. (adjective)
I be from that cave (preposition + place)
I be 16 (number)*
Since there is only one difference* between English and Serbian - we say "ja imam 16 godina" , but in English "I am 16", we might conclude that the age was more important information in the Anglo-Saxon world than in the Slavic one. No matter how frivolous this explanation might be, it helps students grasp the difference between TO BE as the linking verb and auxiliary (in "She IS writing"), although, in some grammars, it is treated as the linking verb as well. ... this terminology issue is a never ending story!


----------



## natasha2000

Mayyya said:


> We could list myriads of examples, such as: "Kada budem ljuta, recicu ti" - although the deep structure ( check the Transformational grammar, Chomsky) of this sentence would be "Kada budem bila ljuta..." which is exactly what I was pointing at - BITI, as the linking verb.
> 
> Now, off the topic, again: When I teach the verb TO BE, I tend to explain that this was probably one of the first abstract verbs, carrying no meaning, but just linking ideas. So the first dialogues would be:
> I be (a) caveman. (noun)
> I be rich. (adjective)
> I be from that cave (preposition + place)
> I be 16 (number)*
> Since there is only one difference* between English and Serbian - we say "ja imam 16 godina" , but in English "I am 16", we might conclude that the age was more important information in the Anglo-Saxon world than in the Slavic one. No matter how frivolous this explanation might be, it helps students grasp the difference between TO BE as the linking verb and auxiliary (in "She IS writing"), although, in some grammars, it is treated as the linking verb as well. ... this terminology issue is a never ending story!


 
Wouldn't the term be copulative verb and not linking verb?


----------



## Mayyya

natasha2000 said:


> Wouldn't the term be copulative verb and not linking verb?



Yes, that was the term we used in Serbian  as well (kopula)!


----------



## !netko!

Bok svima
Hi, everyone

 ''Jesam'' is most definitely the present form of ''biti''. ''Budem'' is the unfinished present form (nesvršeni oblik) of ''biti'', while ''jesam'' is the finished form (svršeni oblik). I know this for certain. I don't get the confusion?


----------



## natasha2000

!netko! said:


> Bok svima
> Hi, everyone
> 
> ''Jesam'' is most definitely the present form of ''biti''. ''Budem'' is the unfinished present form (nesvršeni oblik) of ''biti'', while ''jesam'' is the finished form (svršeni oblik). I know this for certain. I don't get the confusion?


 

I was investigating a little bit, and this is the answer I got on another forum which is about Serbian language:


> Jednostavno, to su dva različita glagola s različitim značenjem (uzgred, *Pravopis iz 1960. kad smo još bili jedan jezik takođe razlikuje ova dva glagola) i ne možemo koristiti jedan umesto drugog.* To što _jesam_ nema nikakve oblike osim prezenta (pa čak ni infinitiv) ne treba mnogo da nas uzbuđuje jer postoji još sličnih glagola: _velim_ (iako pomenuti Pravopis iz 1960. daje _veleti_, više se ne smatra tako), _nemoj_ (samo oblici imperativa za drugo lice jednine i prva dva množine), _hajde_ (takođe samo oblici imperativa; a u drugim situacijama se sreće i kao uzvik i čak kao prilog).
> 
> Glagol _biti_ ima *sve* oblike sem trpnog prideva, i stoga ne vidim zašto bismo mu „kalemili“ neke druge prezente.


 
So, if in 1960, both Croatian and Serbian language made difference between jesam and biti, and nowadays, all grammars of Croatian language make it one verb (see links here), then I wold dare to say that this novelty appeared together with the new Croatian state.

So, we are both right... Each one in respect to their own language...


----------



## !netko!

I guess we are then, natasha... ''Jesam'' as a seperate verb sounds quite illogical to me, but I guess if so many Serbian speakers say so, then it's treated that way in Serbian. It's quite interesting, I never would've imagined that... Also,it's interesting that in Russian there's only one form of the verb. I wonder how it is in other Slavic languages?

  By the way, I can assure you that it's no novelty, it's always been that way in Croatian. So, about the definition of verb ''jesam'' in 1960, it's just the Serbian definition. Many so-called Serbo-Croatian definitions were actually just Serbian. Many things that Serbian speakers would call novelties in Croatian are just normal, straightforward Croatian that sounds strange to you because Serbian forms were prefered in Yugoslavia.


----------



## Maja

So the verdict is: 3 in Serbian, 2 in Croatian!


----------



## Mayyya

Maja said:


> So the verdict is: 3 in Serbian, 2 in Croatian!



Here is yet another vote from Serbia: 2 
Namely, there is no need to stick to nonsense written in the grammar books of 60s (no matter which region of ex Yu they are from). What does it mean that "jesam" has only present tense and therefore  is different from "biti"? Then, one might say that "am" is a completely different auxiliary, and since it does sound and look differnet from "is", then, "is" would be yet another auxiliary etc. 
I remember that we were taught at schools that there were three auxiliaries "jesam, biti, hteti", but we didn't think about that - it was  just rote learning (didn't differ much from "Eci, peci, pec" to me then ), and I think the aim of this thread is to find out if there is a REAL reason for "jesam" to be treated as a separate auxiliary.


----------



## natasha2000

Mayyya said:


> Here is yet another vote from Serbia: 2
> Namely, there is no need to stick to nonsense written in the grammar books of 60s (no matter which region of ex Yu they are from). What does it mean that "jesam" has only present tense and therefore is different from "biti"? Then, one might say that "am" is a completely different auxiliary, and since it does sound and look differnet from "is", then, "is" would be yet another auxiliary etc.
> I remember that we were taught at schools that there were three auxiliaries "jesam, biti, hteti", but we didn't think about that - it was just rote learning (didn't differ much from "Eci, peci, pec" to me then ), and I think the aim of this thread is to find out if there is a REAL reason for "jesam" to be treated as a separate auxiliary.


 

Mayyya, the thing is that also in today's grammars in Serbia, there are still three auxiliary verbs, and it is not based only on some old book from 1960.
I can agree with you and say that to me, it looks like a nonsence. But this won't change the fact that in Serbia three auxiliaries is what is considered correct.

If you want to give a suggestion to SANU or whatever institution who is in charge for making grammar rules, to change this, I would be the first to support you, with all my heart. But in the meantime, Serbian has three auxiliary verbs.

Anyway, this type of grammar rules are completely unnecesary for someone who wants to learn language, unless he doesn't want to become a grammarian.


----------



## Maja

natasha2000 said:


> Mayyya, the thing is that also in today's grammars in Serbia, there are still three auxiliary verbs, and it is not based only on some old book from 1960.
> I can agree with you and say that to me, it looks like a nonsence. But this won't change the fact that in Serbia three auxiliaries is what is considered correct.


I agree!!! The reference I used was "Gramatika srpskog jezika" by Živojin  Stanojčić and Ljubomir Popović, published in 1992. 
Officially 3!!!


----------



## Mayyya

OK. Very true indeed - reminds me of many things happening around. Shall we start another tread with a more meaningful purpose?


----------



## natasha2000

Mayyya said:


> OK. Very true indeed - reminds me of many things happening around. Shall we start another tread with a more meaningful purpose?


 
You are free to start as many threads as you wish, without any need to ask anyone for permission....


----------



## dusica

Maja said:


> I agree!!! The reference I used was "Gramatika srpskog jezika" by Živojin Stanojčić and Ljubomir Popović, published in 1992.
> Officially 3!!!


 
I have the same one published in 1997.It says 3  And I've never heard before for finished and unfinished auxiliary verbs.


----------



## !netko!

dusica said:


> I have the same one published in 1997.It says 3  And I've never heard before for finished and unfinished auxiliary verbs.


 

I can't talk about Serbian but in Croatian, an auxiliary verb has its finished and unfinished form, simply because it's a verb, and that's what verbs have-finished and unfinished forms, and, at least in Croatian, in the case of ''biti'' there is a big difference between the two forms- ''jesam'' and ''budem'' - but they're still the same verb.

 Hope that helps


----------



## dusica

No,we were taught at school that the auxiliary verbs have only one form.No one has ever mentioned to us the finished and unfinished auxiliary verbs,and I think it's a little bit too important to be omitted just like that by teachers.In the Serbian grammar books published during the past 10 years,you can't find that information.It is just said 'there are 3 auxiliary verbs in Serbian: jesam,biti and hteti',and 'jesam' is definitely a separate auxiliary verb in Serbian.It doesn't have infinitive,but only present tense.
I don't know why,but that's what children learn at school.


----------



## natasha2000

*BITI*

*naglašeni nesvršeni: *jesam

*nenaglašeni nesvršeni: *sam 

*svršeni prezent: *budem

*HTJETI*

*naglašeni nesvršeni: *hoću

*nenaglašeni nesvršeni : *ću


*svršeni prezent: ht(j)ednem
*

Maybe this is the difference. In the very same definition. As far as I know, htednem, htednes etc does not exist in Serbian. We do not use this form of HTETI.
Thus, there are no finished and unfinished forms of the verb BITI, but two different verbs. JESAM and BITI. On the other hand, we do have stressed and not stressed forms...

I think this is just a question of different terminology, and nothing more...


----------



## !netko!

In Croatian, we use words*  prohtjedne, ushtjedne:*

Ne možeš otići kad god ti se prohtjedne.

Tako mi se često ushtjedne kolača.


I'm not 100% sure if it's correct, though.


----------



## natasha2000

!netko! said:


> In Croatian, we use words* prohtjedne, ushtjedne:*
> 
> Ne možeš otići kad god ti se prohtjedne.
> 
> Tako mi se često ushtjedne kolača.
> 
> 
> I'm not 100% sure if it's correct, though.


 

Excuse me-... I don't understand. Croatian uses these two verbs for what? 

These two sentences would be in Serbian a little bit different...

1. Ne možeš da ideš kad ti hoćeš (kad tebi padne na pamet)... (There are more vulgar expressions, I think you all know about them, it has to do with stomack gases...  , but here it does not serve too much)...

2. Tako često se uželim kolača. (često poželim kolača. dobijem želju za kolačima... itd...)

I do not understand what these two examples have to do with auxiliary verbs... Would you mind explaining it, please?


----------



## !netko!

I'm just commenting on the use of: ''htjedne'', as the finished form of ''htjeti'', which relates to ''bude'' as the finished form of ''biti''. I'm actually responding to what you yourself said about the non-usage of ''htjedne'' in Serbian. 

There are more ways to express the thoughts expressed in the sentences I mentioned, including those similar to the ones you wrote. I'm just saying they can also be expressed in this form ( with prohtjedne, ushtjedne).


----------



## natasha2000

!netko! said:


> I'm just commenting on the use of: ''htjedne'', as the finished form of ''htjeti'', which relates to ''bude'' as the finished form of ''biti''. I'm actually responding to what you yourself said about the non-usage of ''htjedne'' in Serbian.
> 
> There are more ways to express the thoughts expressed in the sentences I mentioned, including those similar to the ones you wrote. I'm just saying they can also be expressed in this form ( with prohtjedne, ushtjedne).


 
OK, thanks... If I uderstood you correctly, you say that htjednem has the same meaning as prohtjedne, ushtjedne....
But I think that htjedne and *prohtjedne, ushtjedne* don't have the same meaning...

I think that htjedne in Croatian is what in Serbian would be budem,budes, bude itd. hteo (futur II).

Ako htjedneš ići na žur, zovi me.
Ako budeš hteo da ideš na žur(ku), zovi me.

prohtjednuti, ushtjednuti, at least to me has the meaning of getting a sudden wish for something, not just only plain: want....

Did I uderstand you well? Somehow I have the feeling I didn't...


----------



## !netko!

No, you're right: htjedne doesn't have the same meaning and it can't be used (as far as I know) in Croatian. 
There's nothing to understand about my post really, I just mentioned two finished verbs with the same etimology as the infamous ''htjedne'' and as for ''htjedne'' itself, I'm not sure if it exists Croatian ( my first guess is no, but I've seen stranger things in grammar books, so who knows? )


----------



## natasha2000

It doesn't exist in Croatian? 
But...
Now I am REALLY confused...
So, Ako htjednem does not exist in Croatian?

So, if it not used in Serbian, and it is not used in Croatian... then... How the hell it got into the grammar books????

Anyone with some logical explanation? 

PS: I vaguely remember that my Granny used to say Ako htjednem...., and she was a Croat from Bosnia....


----------



## !netko!

I said it *might* exist. I guess it's archaic, or maybe your grandmother was using a form that wasn't officially correct. There's no need to be confused. Maybe we should wait for another Croatian speaker, who has access to a grammar book. I can't find mine at the moment. If it exists, it's definitely not widely used and has archaic connotations.


----------



## GoranBcn

Ja sam također zbunjen. Izgleda svaki dan ubacuju neka nova pravila. Ako ne pratiš te stvari, izgubljen si. 

_Ako smo svi ovdje "naši" zašto pišete na engleskom? 
Pišite malo i na hrvatskom ili srpskom tako da nešto novo svi naučim_o.


----------



## natasha2000

GoranBcn said:


> Ja sam također zbunjen. Izgleda svaki dan ubacuju neka nova pravila. Ako ne pratiš te stvari, izgubljen si.
> 
> _Ako smo svi ovdje "naši" zašto govorite na engleskom? _
> _Pišite malo i na hrvatskom ili srpskom tako da nešto novo svi naučim_o.


 
U pravu si.  A oni koji uče jezik, trebalo bi da znaju da rastumače ono što je napisano. 

Ja sam oduvek imala utisak da je to htjednem, htjedneš itd. hrvatski, ne znam zašto... Možda je stvarno neki arhaičan oblik koji se više ne koristi ni ko nas ni kod vas ... Jer ja se sećam moje bake, a ona, da je živa, imala bi sada preko 80 godina... Dovoljno da neko govori arhaično, zar ne?

Što se tiče menjanja pravila, daaaa... Tu si potpuno u pravu... Nema tome mnogo, saznah za čitavu seriju oblika koji su sada dozvoljeni a koji su ranije bili potpuno nepravilni. Jedan od takvih primera koji meni ne mogu da udju u glavu je *zadnji *put. (Ivan Klajn. Rečnik jezičkih nedoumica. Čigoja štampa, 2002. str. 197.) Nekad beše *poslednji* i tačka, zadnje su bile noge u magarca, ali sad je dozvoljeno i zadnji, kao da postoji prednji put... Al' šta se tu može, jezik je živo biće i menja se i treba da se menja...


----------



## Maja

!netko! said:


> I can't talk about Serbian but in Croatian, an auxiliary verb has its finished and unfinished form, simply because it's a verb, and that's what verbs have-finished and unfinished forms, and, at least in Croatian, in the case of ''biti'' there is a big difference between the two forms- ''jesam'' and ''budem'' - but they're still the same verb.


 I am pretty sure there is no such thing in Serbian! Our verbs do have perfective and imperfective aspects (svršeni i nesvršeni vid), but not the auxiliary verbs. 
Example: pročitati / čitati, pojesti / jesti, pogledati /  gledati ...


----------



## venenum

Hrvatski enciklopedijski riječnik Jutarnjeg lista (obožavam ih zbog tih 12 knjižica!) kaže:



> _htjednem:_ prez. svrš. u službi futura II


 
dakle, zaključak glasi da su obje strane u pravu: oblik postoji, i koristi se kao futur II, kada se koristi (ja osobno nisam baš čula da se ljudi razbacuju njime)
Ali da dodam ulja na vatru: kako _htjeti _može imati i imperfekt i aorist ako nema svršeni oblik? (Je da je imperfekt blaga debilana: _hotijah/hoćah_ - de, tko još tako što kaže? Ali ipak postoji.)

PS 
@ Goran:
Pisali smo na engleskom:
a) jer si ti započeo temu na engleskom
b) zbog onih koji ne govore hrvatski/srpski a možda bi pratili temu (a bilo je takvih)

Žao mi je što se ovdje nije primio onaj prijedlog o dvojezičnim postovima.


----------



## Maja

natasha2000 said:


> Jedan od takvih primera koji meni ne mogu da udju u glavu je *zadnji *put. (Ivan Klajn. Rečnik jezičkih nedoumica. Čigoja štampa, 2002. str. 197.) Nekad beše *poslednji* i tačka, zadnje su bile noge u magarca, ali sad je dozvoljeno i zadnji, kao da postoji prednji put...


Nije valjda? Pa jedva smo naučili da je prednji-zadnji, prvi-poslednji a sad odjednom nema veze... Bedak!


----------



## natasha2000

venenum said:


> Hrvatski enciklopedijski riječnik Jutarnjeg lista (obožavam ih zbog tih 12 knjižica!) kaže:
> 
> dakle, zaključak glasi da su obje strane u pravu: oblik postoji, i koristi se kao futur II, kada se koristi (ja osobno nisam baš čula da se ljudi razbacuju njime)
> 
> Baš kao moja dva primera!
> 
> 
> 
> Ako htjedneš ići na žur, zovi me. (prezent u upotrebi kao futur II)
> Ako budeš hteo da ideš na žur(ku), zovi me. (futur II)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ali da dodam ulja na vatru: kako _htjeti _može imati i imperfekt i aorist ako nema svršeni oblik? (Je da je imperfekt blaga debilana: _hotijah/hoćah_ - de, tko još tako što kaže? Ali ipak postoji.)
> 
> Ma ima, sigurno. Ali to više niko ne koristi. Aorist, uopšte, u srpskom ( usudjujem se de kažem i u hrvatskom) gubi na važnosti, i umesto njega, sve više se koristi perfekt. Koristi se samo u specijalnim slučajevima, kao na primer za buduće radnje, kad kažeš: Odoh ja. A u stvari još nisi otišao, nego samo najavljuješ šta će se desiti u skoroj budućnosti...
> Hotijah, hotijaše itd. sigurno postoji, ali u tekstovima tipa Gorski vijenac i Kraljevižu Marko ore drumove carske...  Imperfekt je odavno mrtav.
> 
> PS
> @ Goran:
> Pisali smo na engleskom:
> a) jer si ti započeo temu na engleskom
> b) zbog onih koji ne govore hrvatski/srpski a možda bi pratili temu (a bilo je takvih)
> 
> Žao mi je što se ovdje nije primio onaj prijedlog o dvojezičnim postovima.
> Dobar predlog, nema šta. Ali je izuzetno time-consuming. Za nestrpljive osobe (kao ja ) gotovo nemoguće ostvarljiv... S druge strane, to mogu da razumem u dimenzijama u kojima je predloženo, kad u razgovoru učestvuje više osoba koje ne govore isti jezik. Ali kada, kao u ovom threadu, svi učesnici se medjusobno razumeju iako svaki govori svojim maternjim jezikom, ne vidim potrebu za prevodima na engl. jezik. A onaj ko uči "naški" neka se potrudi da razume... Ni meni niko ne prevodi u English or Spanish Only....
Click to expand...


----------



## GoranBcn

venenum said:


> @ Goran:
> Pisali smo na engleskom:
> a) jer si ti započeo temu na engleskom
> b) zbog onih koji ne govore hrvatski/srpski a možda bi pratili temu (a bilo je takvih)
> 
> Žao mi je što se ovdje nije primio onaj prijedlog o dvojezičnim postovima.



Počeo sam je engleskom jer sam mislio da će i stranci učestvovati ali sad vidim da smo samo mi ovdje. Zbog toga sam predložio to. Inače i meni to odgovara jer sam mnogo tih stvari zaboravio i ovo mi je jedina prilika da pišem na mom jeziku 
Znači prema onome što sam do sad pročitao u školama u Hrvatskoj djeca uče da postoje dva pomoćna glagola a u školama u Srbiji tri? Kako li je sad u Bosni?  Mi smo tamo uvijek uzimali malo od jednih a malo od drugih jer smo se nalazili na vjetrometini.  Možda tamo postoje 2,5 pomoćnih glagola?  Ko/tko zna?


----------



## dusica

!netko! said:


> In Croatian, we use words* prohtjedne, ushtjedne:*
> 
> Ne možeš otići kad god ti se prohtjedne.
> 
> Tako mi se često ushtjedne kolača.
> 
> 
> I'm not 100% sure if it's correct, though.


 
I u srpkom može da se čuje 'Ne možeš otići kada ti se prohte'.


----------



## natasha2000

dusica said:


> I u srpkom može da se čuje 'Ne možeš otići kada ti se prohte'.


 
Da. Upravo tako.

S: prohte od hteti
H: prohtjedne od... htjednuti??


----------



## !netko!

natasha2000 said:


> Da. Upravo tako.
> 
> S: prohte od hteti
> H: prohtjedne od... htjednuti??


 

''prohtjedne'' isto od ''htjeti'', samo drukčiji oblik. 

Ali, i u hrvatskom se češće čuje ''prohtije'', čini mi se


----------



## GoranBcn

Evo našao sam jednu knjigu gramatike ovdje u Barceloni _Manual básico hispano serbocroata (dialecto íeakavo) con vocabulario - sexta edición 1998_  od Sandre Stanisavljević. 

Na španjolskom je naravno a kaže ovo:

_En serbocroata existen *dos verbos auxiliares*: biti (ser) y htjeti (querer). El verbo auxiliar biti en presente tiene cuatro formas:

*forma completa:* jesam, jesi, jest, jesmo, jeste, jesu
*forma breve:* sam, si, je, smo, ste, su
*forma negativa:* nisam, nisi, nije, nismo, niste, nisu
*forma biaspectual:* budem, budeš, bude, budemo, budete, budu
*forma pasiva:* bivam, bivaš, biva, bivamo, bivate, bivaju

El verbo auxiliar htjeti tiene dos formas de presente:

*forma completa:* hoću, hoćeš, hoće, hoćemo, hoćete, hoće
*forma breve:* ću, ćeš, će, ćemo, ćete, će
*forma negativa:* neću, nećeš, neće, nećemo, nećete, neće

_Goran


----------



## natasha2000

GoranBcn said:


> Evo našao sam jednu knjigu gramatike ovdje u Barceloni _Manual básico hispano serbocroata (dialecto íeakavo) con vocabulario - sexta edición 1998_ od Sandre Stanisavljević.
> 
> Na španjolskom je naravno a kaže ovo:
> 
> _En serbocroata existen *dos verbos auxiliares*: biti (ser) y htjeti (querer). El verbo auxiliar biti en presente tiene cuatro formas:_
> 
> _*forma completa:* jesam, jesi, jest, jesmo, jeste, jesu_
> _*forma breve:* sam, si, je, smo, ste, su_
> _*forma negativa:* nisam, nisi, nije, nismo, niste, nisu_
> _*forma biaspectual:* budem, budeš, bude, budemo, budete, budu_
> _*forma pasiva:* bivam, bivaš, biva, bivamo, bivate, bivaju_
> 
> _El verbo auxiliar htjeti tiene dos formas de presente:_
> 
> _*forma completa:* hoću, hoćeš, hoće, hoćemo, hoćete, hoće_
> _*forma breve:* ću, ćeš, će, ćemo, ćete, će_
> _*forma negativa:* neću, nećeš, neće, nećemo, nećete, neće_
> 
> Goran


 
Ne razumem ovo "biaspectual"??? Kako, biaspectual? Dva aspekta?  Šta gdja. Stanisavljević hoće da kaže time "biaspectual"?


----------



## natasha2000

!netko! said:


> ''prohtjedne'' isto od ''htjeti'', samo drukčiji oblik.
> 
> Ali, i u hrvatskom se češće čuje ''prohtije'', čini mi se


 
Možda nisam najrelevantnija osoba, ali meni prirodnije zvuči "prohtije" od "prohtedne"....


----------



## GoranBcn

natasha2000 said:


> Ne razumem ovo "biaspectual"??? Kako, biaspectual? Dva aspekta?  Šta gdja. Stanisavljević hoće da kaže time "biaspectual"?



I ja sam se to pitao. hehehe


----------

