# to have



## Dymn

Recently I read expressing possession with a verb in which the possessor is the subject and the thing possessed the object is actually a trait of Standard Average European that is not the rule cross-linguistically.

For example:

English: _I've got a chair. / I have a chair._
Catalan: _Tinc una cadira._
Spanish: _Tengo una silla._

However in Russian whereas there's the equivalent verb _иметь (imet')_, usually possession is expressed like "_У меня есть стул." (U menja jest' stul_, i.e. "By me is chair"). I think other Slavic language do use "have" just like in English and the Romance languages.

So, how is it like in your language?


----------



## apmoy70

Greek uses the verb exactly as it's used in English, Catalan or Spanish:

*«Έχω μια καρέκλα»* [ˈe̞xo̞ˌmɲa.kaˈɾe̞kla] --> _*I* *have** a chair*_.


----------



## Penyafort

While us, speakers of Romance languages, use verbs derived from _habeo_ and/or _teneo_, Latin also had that construction you mentioned for Russian (or rather something similar, a possessive dative). For 'I've got a chair', you could say _*Est mihi sella*_ 'Is to me (Dative) chair'.


----------



## apmoy70

Penyafort said:


> While us, speakers of Romance languages, use verbs derived from _habeo_ and/or _teneo_, Latin also had that construction you mentioned for Russian (or rather something similar, a possessive dative). For 'I've got a chair', you could say _*Est mihi sella*_ 'Is to me (Dative) chair'.


Ancient Greek was similar, it used the verb *«εἰμί» eimí* (copula) in its impersonal 3rd person form *«ἐστί» ĕstí* + personal pronoun in dative, to express possession:
*«Ἐστὶ μοι ὁ θῶκος» ĕstì moi hŏ tʰôkŏs* or *«ἐστὶ μοι ἡ καθέδρᾱ» ĕstì moi hē kătʰédrā* = _*It is* *to me** the chair*_


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Thinking back to my school days, Irish Gaelic is rather like Russian in this regard: tá cathaoir agam, literally "is chair at me" or in somewhat more understandable English, "the chair is at me". Scottish Gaelic is basically the same from what I read online (aside from a slightly different orthography), "tha cathair agam".


----------



## Dymn

Penyafort said:


> Latin also had that construction you mentioned for Russian (or rather something similar, a possessive dative). For 'I've got a chair', you could say _*Est mihi sella*_ 'Is to me (Dative) chair'.


Was this more or less common than _"sellam habeo"?_


----------



## סייבר־שד

Modern Hebrew, like Russian and Modern Standard Arabic (not really sure about the dialects) doesn't use a "to have" verb for such things, preferring instead the following construction:

*יש *[yesh] _(= there is / there are) _+ *ל *[le] _(a preposition meaning "to, for") _+ *the possessor(s) *+ *the possessed object(s)*

So, if you wanted to say, for instance: 
_"I have many Russian sci-fi books"_, in Hebrew that would be: _"יש לי הרבה ספרי מדע בדיוני רוסיים" _[yesh li harbé sifréi madá bidióni rusiím] _(literally "there are to me many Russian sci-fi books)_.


----------



## Awwal12

Dymn said:


> However in Russian whereas there's the equivalent verb _иметь (imet')_, usually possession is expressed like "_У меня есть стул." (U menja jest' stul_, i.e. "By me is chair").


The construction looks like a common East Slavic feature going back straight to Old Russian (a.k.a. Old East Slavic), though both Ukrainian and Belarusian use the verb "to have" much more willingly (most likely under Polish influence).

P.S.: I always wondered if it can be a partial calque from Turkic languages (Khazar?), since those also normally use an existential predicative "bar" for possession, albeit in a slightly different structure:
Tatar - anıŋ öč kızı bar "he has three daughters", lit. "his three his.daughter there-is/are"
Turkish - onun bir kitabı var "he has a book", lit. "of.him one his.book there-is/are"


----------



## AutumnOwl

In Swedish it's "_jag har en stol (där)"_ (I have a chair), but it's possible to construct a sentence like "_stolen har jag där" _(the chair have I there) and "_där har jag en stol" (_there have I a chair), depending on which is most important (I, the chair, there).


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Celts traditionally do not have (!) a verb to have - either as a 'full' verb or as an auxiliary in, say, the Perfect tense. (In that latter case, Cymraeg/Welsh uses 'wedi' ( = after). I say traditionally, as under French influence, there are some signs of 'have' in Breton, but I will concentrate this post on my own mother tongue and the other half of the extant Celtic languages.

*Northern Welsh

Mae gen i gath*
Is by me (a) SOFT MUTATION cat
'I have a cat'

So, Northerners, like me, use the preposition 'by', which is fully inflected for person.

*Southern Welsh

Mae cath (gy)'da fi*
Is (a) cat with me
'I have a cat'

Southerners, in contrast, use the preposition 'with', which is NOT inflected for person. Further, the word order, as you can see is different.

The Northerner structure is considered also to be the standard for to indicate 'possession.'

I once had a long exchange with a German publisher (which I eventually won) who tried to insist that _all_ languages have a verb 'to have' as it was 'so basic to language'. 

*To have as an auxiliary in the Perfect Tense

Dw i wedi canu*
Am i after singing
'I have sung'

Again, this use of 'after' = 'have' as AUX. is a common feature of the Celtic languages. I'm sure @Pedro y La Torre will remind us that Irish has a similar construct - and that sometimes such features turn up in Hiberno-English and Welsh-English: *'I'm after going out, I am'*


----------



## Penyafort

Dymn said:


> Was this more or less common than _"sellam habeo"?_


Good question. We probably should ask this in the Latin section, where many know much more than me about the language. I guess _sellam habeo_ must have been far more common, if not the only option, in late spoken Latin, which would explain its use in the Romance languages.


----------



## AndrasBP

Awwal12 said:


> Tatar - anıŋ öč kızı bar "he has three daughters", lit. "his three his.daughter there-is/are"
> Turkish - onun bir kitabı var "he has a book", lit. "of.him one his.book there-is/are"


The Hungarian structure is pretty much the same as Turkic:

*Van két lányom*. = "I have two daughters", lit. "there-is two daughter-my"



Awwal12 said:


> P.S.: I always wondered if it can be a partial calque from Turkic languages (Khazar?)


Could it be an influence from Finno-Ugric languages? (cf. Finnish "minulla on" = I have)


----------



## elroy

סייבר־שד said:


> Modern Hebrew, like Russian and Modern Standard Arabic (not really sure about the dialects) doesn't use a "to have" verb for such things


Modern Standard Arabic uses عند* or لـ ("for").  The equivalents of these are also used in Palestinian Arabic.  I can't speak for all dialects, but I don't think there's a dialect that has an actual verb meaning "to have."  

People translating from English into Arabic sometimes use the verb ملك ("to own"), but 9 times out of 10 that's unidiomatic calque-y translationese (at least in my opinion). 

*There is no English equivalent.  This is the French "chez," the German "bei," and the Hebrew אצל.  The closest English equivalents are "with" or "by."


----------



## elroy

סייבר־שד said:


> *יש *[yesh] _(= there is / there are) _+ *ל *[le] _(a preposition meaning "to, for") _+ *the possessor(s) *+ *the possessed object(s)*


Korean, like Hebrew, uses “there is,” but without a preposition:

사과가 있어요.
apple+[subject marker] there-is
‘There is an apple.’ / יש תפוח

선생님은 사과가 있어요.
teacher+[topic marker] apple+[subject marker] there-is
‘The teacher has an apple.’ / יש למורה תפוח


----------



## AndrasBP

Lithuanian and Latvian, even though closely related, differ in this respect.

The verb "to have" is "*turėti*" in Lithuanian, whose Latvian cognate "turēt" means "to hold", pretty much like Spanish "tener" and Italian "tenere". 

LT: Aš *turiu *šunį. = I have a dog. ("šunį" is the accusative case of "šuo" = dog)

However, Latvian uses "to-me *there-is*", like Celtic languages or Russian:

LV: Man *ir *suns. = I have a dog. ("man" is "to me", dative)


----------



## Awwal12

AndrasBP said:


> The Hungarian structure is pretty much the same as Turkic:


Yes, Finno-Ugric languages tend to miss the verb "to have" entirely, using genitive existential constructions for possession instead. Unlike the Turkic ones, they use proper existential verbs, though.


AndrasBP said:


> Could it be an influence from Finno-Ugric languages? (cf. Finnish "minulla on" = I have)


Given that the construction is common East Slavic, it doesn't seem likely. Let's suppose the bordering Slavic tribes (the Ilmen Slavs, Vyatichs and Krivichs) could have loaned the construction in the course of assimilating the local Finnic population, but how could it have been transferred to the other East Slavic tribes (who never had had any linguistic contact with Finnic speakers)? I fail to see any motivation here.


----------



## elroy

I also want to add that Palestinian Arabic distinguishes between “have *in general*” and “have *on me right now*.”

عندي كتاب = I have a book (but it’s not with me right now).
معاي كتاب = I have a book (on me right now).

The first uses “chez,” the second uses “with.”

Do other languages have this distinction?

In some varieties of Spanish, “andar” (“to walk”) is used colloquially for “to have on me.”

Ando un libro. = I have a book (on me right now).


----------



## Awwal12

elroy said:


> Do other languages have this distinction?


In Russian it's not exactly obligatory (i.e. there is no specific expression for *not* having sth on you). However, you can specify that you have something on you right at the moment by using different prepositional phrases. It should be noted that they're basically restricted to non-present or thematic constructions, though; otherwise your only option is using the general possessive construction combined with an additional specifying phrase.

у меня есть книга (u menyá yést' kníga) - I have a/the book (in general), lit. "at/by/near me(gen.) is/are book"
у меня была книга (u menyá bylá kníga) - I had a/the book (in general), lit. "at/by/near me(gen.) was(fem.) book"
книга у меня (kníga u menyá) - I have the book, I got the book, the book is in my possession, lit. "book at/by/near me(gen.)"

при мне была книга (pri mné bylá kníga) - I had a/the book on me, lit. "beside me(dat.) was(fem.) book"
со мной была книга (so mnóy bylá kníga) - ~id., lit. "with me(instr.) was(fem.) book"
книга при мне (kníga pri mné) - the book is on me, lit. "book beside me(dat.)"
книга со мной (kníga so mnóy) - ~id., lit. "book with me(instr.)"

у меня с собой есть книга (u menyá s sobóy yést' kníga) - I have a/the book on me, lit. "at/by/near me(gen.) with oneself(instr.) is/are book"; curiously, the controller of the reflexive here is not the subject as one would typically expect
у меня при себе есть книга (u menyá pri sebé yést' kníga) - id., lit. "at/by/near me(gen.) beside oneself(dat.) is/are book"
+ all the remaining phrases from the first group modified in just the same way


----------



## Olaszinhok

AndrasBP said:


> talian "tenere".


*Tenere* doesn't mean_ to have_ in Italian, unlike Spanish _tener_, Portuguese _ter_ and Catalan _tenir._


----------



## AndrasBP

Olaszinhok said:


> *Tenere* doesn't mean_ to have_ in Italian,


Yes, that was my point exactly. Please re-read my sentence.


----------



## Olaszinhok

AndrasBP said:


> es, that was my point exactly. Please re-read my sentence.


Oh sorry,  I stand corrected.


----------



## Dymn

In *Hindi*: _मेरे पास एक कुर्सी है (Mere pās ek kursī hai_, i.e. "Near me is a chair"_)._

In *Chinese*: 我有一把椅子 (_Wo you yi ba yizi, i.e. _"I have one [classifier] chair_"_)

Japanese is I think like Korean but I don't feel confident enough to include it. For now Chinese is the only major non-European language with the "I have X" structure.


----------



## elroy

AndrasBP said:


> The verb "to have" is "*turėti*" in Lithuanian, whose Latvian cognate "turēt" means "to hold", pretty much like Spanish "tener" and Italian "tenere".


This is actually misleadingly worded, but it implies the opposite of what @Olaszinhok understood: it implies that both Romance verbs mean “to hold.”

Suggestion:
The verb "to have" is "*turėti*" in Lithuanian, whose Latvian cognate "turēt" means "to hold", *so this pair is* pretty much like Spanish "tener" and Italian "tenere".

(Also, I have heard a native speaker of Spanish, from Argentina, use “tener” to mean “to hold.”)


----------



## סייבר־שד

elroy said:


> I also want to add that Palestinian Arabic distinguishes between “have *in general*” and “have *on me right now*.”
> 
> عندي كتاب = I have a book (but it’s not with me right now).
> معاي كتاب = I have a book (on me right now).
> 
> The first uses “chez,” the second uses “with.”
> 
> Do other languages have this distinction?
> 
> In some varieties of Spanish, “andar” (“to walk”) is used colloquially for “to have on me.”
> 
> Ando un libro. = I have a book (on me right now).


Now I'm very curious to know which varieties feature that curious use of the verb "andar"! I have never heard it here, either in the capital or elsewhere, but I have a very vague memory of having come across it years ago, no idea where it was, though.


----------



## elroy

@Awwal12, so the first group doesn’t specify whether it’s “have in general” or “have on me,” whereas in the second and third groups it’s specifically “have on me,” right?



סייבר־שד said:


> Now I'm very curious to know which varieties feature that curious use of the verb "andar"! I have never heard it here, either in the capital or elsewhere, but I have a very vague memory of having come across it years ago, no idea where it was, though.


The DLE lists four Central American countries:

18. tr. C. Rica, El Salv., Hond. y Nic. Llevar algo consigo. Andar un vestido verde, dinero, carro.

andar | Diccionario de la lengua española

I heard it in Honduras, near the border with Guatemala, so it probably occurs in Guatemala too.

I don’t know if it occurs outside Central America.


----------



## Olaszinhok

elroy said:


> Also, I have heard a native speaker of Spanish, from Argentina, use “tener” to mean “to hold.”)


Also in certain southern Italian dialects/languages (Neapolitan) _tenere_ means to have.


----------



## סייבר־שד

elroy said:


> (Also, I have heard a native speaker of Spanish, from Argentina, use “tener” to mean “to hold.”)



I was going to write that I have heard that verb used in the same way in Mexico, but thinking better about it, I believe it's actually not the verb *tener*, but rather a colloquial aphaeresis of either *sostener* or *detener*, both of which are often used over here with the meaning "to hold (sth) (in place)".

An example of that could be:

• _"Hijo, tenme esto tantito, por favor."
(= "Son, hold this for me a bit, please.")_

What's also interesting is that I don't think I've ever heard it employed here in any other form than the one from my example.


----------



## Awwal12

elroy said:


> so the first group doesn’t specify whether it’s “have in general” or “have on me,” whereas in the second and third groups it’s specifically “have on me,” right?


The first group doesn't specify if the possessed object is on the person or not (hence "to have in general"). The second and the third group specify that the object is, indeed, on the person.


----------



## Dymn

It turns out *Icelandic *only uses _hafa _(cognate to English _have_) for abstract concepts such as time. For concrete objects, both "_eiga_" (cognate to English _own_) and "_vera með_" ("to be with") are used. So both strategies are possible in Icelandic.

(Coming from Langfocus' video)


----------

