# the history of "to have" in East Slavic languages



## Encolpius

Hello, do you know why only East Slavic languages and (OK, Irish, too - I know nothing about that) of Indo-European languages dropped (OK, not completely)the typical "I have a book" form of possession (OK, it is still used in some cases) and *prefers existential clause* like Hungarian, and other non-Indo-European languages? What I am interested is, what form did Old Church Slavonic use, and how about the Russian of former centuries, if "я имею карие глаза" is archaic, I suppose, "to have" was common in older Russian (I think you will speak about Russian mostly and I am most interested in Russian, but I think the same refers to Ukrainian and Belarusian).... Or was there any influence of any non-Indo-Euroepan, maybe Turkish language? I haven't found any similar info in this forum, so I hope I am not repeating any question.


----------



## Gale_

Hello, Encolpius!
Concerning Modern Russian such turn of speech as "я имею" still is used as  you noticed, so it's not so archaic, but you're right: it tends to be  supplanted by the expression "у меня есть". We often say "я имею  намерение" (I have the intention), "я имею предположение" (I have a  suggestion), "я имею право" (I have a right), "я имею интерес" (I have  an interest), "я имею в виду, что..." (I have in sight that... - i.e. I  mean that...), but we don't use to say "я имею карие глаза" (I _have_ hazel eyes). Usually we say "у меня карие глаза", and it means "у меня _*есть*_ карие глаза", but "_есть_" ("_to be_" or here "are") is just dropped as it uses to be with the verb "быть"/"to be" in the Present Tense now. 
So  I don't know for sure why it has happened, but I can guess that if you  can say the same by means of two or three words, it's quite natural that  you will prefer a shorter way. Compare "я имею проблему" with "у меня  проблема". Of course the preposition "у" in the last expression is the  _third_ word, but it's just a preposition, it "weighs" not as much as a verb, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Encolpius

Gale_ said:


> ...So  I don't know for sure *why it has happened*, but I can guess that if you  can say the same by means of two or three words, it's quite natural that  you will prefer a shorter way....



That's the question.


----------



## Gale_

I meant also that generally speaking in Russian language auxiliary verbs tend to be omitted, because in many cases the corresponding *agreement* *of* other words' *endings* is quite enough to keep sense, and they imply the verb by themselves.
It's just shorter )


----------



## bibax

The "existential" construction existed in Latin as well.

Athamanti et Nebulae (dat.) duo liberi (nom.) erant, Phrixus et Helle. = Two children were to Athamas and Nebula, ...

(Athamas et Nebula duos liberos habent = Athamas and Nebula had two children)


----------



## CapnPrep

See also this existing thread about the history of _have_ vs. _be_ possessives throughout IE (and beyond):
Why "I have" instead of "to me is"?


----------



## swintok

Encolpius said:


> Hello, do you know why only East Slavic languages and (OK, Irish, too - I know nothing about that) of Indo-European languages dropped (OK, not completely)the typical "I have a book" form of possession (OK, it is still used in some cases) and *prefers existential clause* like Hungarian, and other non-Indo-European languages? What I am interested is, what form did Old Church Slavonic use, and how about the Russian of former centuries, if "я имею карие глаза" is archaic, I suppose, "to have" was common in older Russian (I think you will speak about Russian mostly and I am most interested in Russian, but I think the same refers to Ukrainian and Belarusian).... Or was there any influence of any non-Indo-Euroepan, maybe Turkish language? I haven't found any similar info in this forum, so I hope I am not repeating any question.



The situation is not quite the same in Ukrainian.  The verb "to have" is much more widely used in Ukrainian than in Russian.  You can equally say Я маю карі очі as У мене карі очі, though the western Ukrainian dialects favour the former construction and the eastern favour the latter.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I suspect that in the development of the majority of natural languages there is a first phase when possession is expressed by existential clauses (Classical Latin: "Mihi est amicus"). Later, there is the passage to a complete transformation of the structure by means of:
1. the use of a personal pronoun subject (Ego) which substitutes for the oblique case (Mihi)
2. the use of a "new" verb (Latin "habere") to substitute for "esse"
3. the "thing possessed" becomes the object of the new verb "habere"

So we have the following scheme:

"Mihi est amicus"  —> "(Ego) Habeo amicum"

What is not easy to understand is why the "possessed" should be in the accusative: "habere", "have", "haben", "avoir", "tener", etc., far from being transitive verbs, fulfil the function of describing not an action, a process, or an event but rather a state of things.

GS


----------



## francisgranada

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> ... What is not easy to understand is why the "possessed" should be in the accusative: "habere", "have", "haben", "avoir", "tener", etc., far from being transitive verbs, fulfil the function of describing not an action, a process, or an event but rather a state of things.


A possible explanation is that these verbs were originally "normal" transitive verbs and their abstract meaning of possession is due to a later evolution/interpretation. This is clear in case of the Spanish "tener" that practically means "to hold", even today. But also e.g. the English "to have" goes back to an Indo-European *kap- "to grasp".  

If so, then I should reduce your 3 points into one:
1. the use of an "old" transitive verb (hold, get, keep, grasp ...) in a "more abstract" function (i.e. _habere_)

So "mihi est amicus" and "(ego) habeo amicum" might be parallel forms, but the "habeo" structure was "felt" as a "stronger" expression for the possession (because the subject is the owner),  thus in many (IE) languages only the "habeo" structure has survived. 

In case of the Russian the tendency seems to be opposite and I wouldn't exclude the Turkic influence in this case.
 
Ciao, Giorgio


----------



## Gale_

Then to be honest I have to say...  I'm not sure that this statement is correct:


Gale_ said:


> Concerning  Modern Russian such turn of speech as "я имею" still is used as  you  noticed, so it's not so archaic, but you're right: it tends to *be  supplanted by* the expression "у меня есть".


I've said, but I don't know whether there was any supplanting in Russian. I mean that I don't know whether there were two parallel forms and one of them has become dominant, or there was one prevailing form and then another has come instead of the first. 


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> What is not easy to understand is why the "possessed" should be in the accusative:...


So if you think that accusative isn't suit, then what case would you prefer? Genitive?
As for me I also think that "иметь" ("to have") was a transitive verb formerly and expressed not just a state, but implied some possibility of operating with the object of possession.




francisgranada said:


> So "mihi est amicus" and "(ego) habeo amicum" might be parallel forms, but the "habeo" structure *was "felt" as a "stronger" expression for the possession* (because the subject is the owner),  thus in many (IE) languages only the "habeo" structure has survived.
> 
> In case of the Russian the tendency seems to be opposite ...


It seems you're right. It really feels stronger ) 

And if I compared "_я имею_" with "_у меня есть_", I would say that the second expression sounds more static. 

Concerning  the idea of the ergonomic principle





Gale_ said:


> ... It's just  shorter )


 it has some semantic restraint of course. I want to  say that expressions "_у меня есть есть карие глаза_" and "_у меня карие глаза_" have a bit different sense. The first statement expresses more the fact of availability (presence) of something (_eyes_), and the second one accents on the quality of the object (_my eyes are *hazel*_). 
Compare also "_у меня есть велосипед_", "_у меня велосипед_" and "_велосипед у меня_".  It's all the same (I have a bike), but at the same time there are  different nuances here. The thirst phrase expresses the fact of  possesion, that's why here *the verb* "_есть_" (_are_) *can't be dropped*.  The second phrase accents on the object. I would use it for example in  the case of opposition or explanation of the reason such as "Я не  езжу на автобусе, у меня велосипед" (I don't use to go by bus, I have a  bike").
The third phrase accents on the subject of possession. It means that "it's *me* who has a bike". If somebody asks who has that concrete bike, the answer will be "велосипед у меня".
So it’s not that simple...


----------



## francisgranada

Gale_ said:


> ... I mean that I don't know whether there were two parallel forms and one of them become dominant, or there was one prevailing form and then another has come instead of the first.


I don't know if the following is an answer to what you say, however, I try to explain my opinion:

Giorgio Spizzi has expressed a “general hypothesis” or "scheme", not especially for the Russian or Slavic languages. I.e. he has told that constructions like "mihi est (Latin)", "у меня есть (Russian)", "nekem van (Hungarian)" ... seem to be generally "primary", that is, chronologically/historically/naturally more "ancient" than the appearance of verbs meaning _habere, to have, иметь _... etc.

In the present-day Slavic languages the the correspondig forms of the verb _иметь _(_imieć, mať, mít, imati, ...) _generally prevail (as far as know, surely in the Western Slavic languages). This practically confirms what Giorgio is speaking about. On the other hand, the present-day Russian prefers the construction "at/to me is" even though the verb _иметь_ ("habere") does exist, and it was used in the past more frequently than today. That's why I think that the Turkic (or Uralic etc ... where the "habere" verb does not exist) influence is a possible explanation for this phenomenon. In other words, the construction “у меня есть” (literally so) is not common in the Slavic languages in the sense of “to have”.

By the way, I think that the Latin "mihi est" (and e.g. also the Hungarian "nekem van") does not correspond _exactly _to the Russian "у меня есть", but rather to "_мнe _есть" (dative). I don't know if it is important here, but from the point of view of a possible Turkic (or other) influence this may be relevant.


----------



## Gale_

I see...

Thank  you for the explanation. I guessed what you were talking about, but it  has clarified something. At least before I didn't know that Turkic and  Uralic hadn't the "habere" verb.


----------



## francisgranada

Gale_ said:


> ...At least before I didn't know that Turkic and  Uralic hadn't the "habere" verb.


Only for corectness: I don't speak all the Turkic and Uralic languages, of course (mamma mia ...), so I cannot guarantee the _total absence_ of some "habere" verb in all of them ... But the "existential clause" (the verb "to be") is the typical or "natural" way to express the possession in these languages (including my mother tongue).


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Gale.

You say: "_So if you think that accusative isn't suit, then what case would you prefer? Genitive?_"
 I must say it's not easy to answer. Maybe _there's_ no answer; after all "habere" — and the rest of the gang — is a mid-verb which, like all transitive verbs, is followed by a NP, but this NP is not the object of "habere". 

All the best.

GS


----------



## francisgranada

I don't "feel" this problem with the accusative (according to post #9), but also e.g. "I (can) see the house". _House _is the object in accusative, but the verb "to see" does not describe any action/process/event, instead, my "status" or "capacity".


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Gale_ said:


> Usually we say "у меня карие глаза", and it means "у меня _*есть*_ карие глаза", but "_есть_" ("_to be_" or here "are") is just dropped as it uses to be with the verb "быть"/"to be" in the Present Tense now.


In Tolstoy's time the good writers used the plural form *суть*...


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Gale_ said:


> Concerning  the idea of the ergonomic principle it has some semantic restraint of course. I want to  say that expressions "_у меня есть есть карие глаза_" and "_у меня карие глаза_" have a bit different sense. The first statement expresses more the fact of availability (presence) of something (_eyes_), and the second one accents on the quality of the object (_my eyes are *hazel*_).
> Compare also "_у меня есть велосипед_", "_у меня велосипед_" and "_велосипед у меня_".  It's all the same (I have a bike), but at the same time there are  different nuances here. The thirst phrase expresses the fact of  possesion, that's why here *the verb* "_есть_" (_are_) *can't be dropped*.  The second phrase accents on the object. I would use it for example in  the case of opposition or explanation of the reason such as "Я не  езжу на автобусе, у меня велосипед" (I don't use to go by bus, I have a  bike").
> The third phrase accents on the subject of possession. It means that "it's *me* who has a bike". If somebody asks who has that concrete bike, the answer will be "велосипед у меня".
> So it’s not that simple...



A case when you have to drop the copula verb (in present tense) is when you speak about the state of your health: у меня ангина, у меня рези в желудке, у меня хорошее самочувствие.

Although it's no longer possible to use the verb to have as a verb of possession in constructions of the type "I have" except a few set phrases, sometimes (I cannot say exactly in which cases) you can say "(у меня) имеется" or, "имеется в наличии".
"Мы имеем" is an expression when you check the items of a list.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

Gale's three sentences offer food for thought. Although I expected for there to be some difference between

"_у меня есть велосипед_" and "_у меня велосипед_" 

I had never reached the point where one _actually sees_ such difference. I imagine that a possible way of rendering the difference in Italian might be, respectively, "Ho *la/una* bici" and "Я не езжу на автобусе; ho la bici". In other words I suspect that in the first sentence I might use either the definite or the indefinite article, while in the second the definite article would be felt as the "natural" choice.

Regarding the third sentence, "_велосипед у меня_", I think we are in front of a completely different communicative scenario: 

1. most probably the tonic syllable is "_ня", _showing that the Predicate is Rhematic and New.
2. differently from what happened with the other two sentences, a translation of "_велосипед" _— which is "Given" information _—_would be"*The* bike" and not "a bike".
3. The Italian translation would be "*La* bici è mia" with the tonic on "mia". In French — which is more interesting from this point of view — this would be "*Le* velo est à moi", which has nothing to do with either "у меня есть", or "мнe есть", both of which I imagine are appropriate when the subject is indefinite. 
I'm saying this because I know it may be tempting to translate French "... est à moi" with Russian "у меня есть...". And vice-versa. 

Thank you.

GS


----------



## Gale_

Angelo di fuoco said:


> In Tolstoy's time the good writers used the plural form *суть*...


Yes, it's true.
They say that even Gorky was criticized for using "есть" as a plural form.
I have to say that now *суть* still is used (not often) instead of *есть* in some cases, mostly when you want to make a semantic accent and give your speech some archaic and solemn tones.





> ...внешние формы быта, одежды, обряды, обычаи, моды ..., говорю я, вовсе не причуда, не вздор, не чисто "внешние вещи", как говорят глупцы; нет, _они *суть* неизбежные последствия_, органически вытекающие из перемен в нашем внутреннем мире; это неизбежные пластические символы идеалов, внутри нас созревших или готовых созреть...


But now _*суть*_ (v. are) and _*суть *_(n. essence) easily are confused, and I've heard that some people use this form of the verb instead of expression _*по сути*_ implying that the verb являются (есть) is dropped. They say _"они суть ..."_ as they would say "_они по сути ..._" i.e. _"они по сути являются ..."_ and so they use _*суть*_ even with a singular (pro)noun, although it's not correct.


----------



## Gale_

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> a translation of "_велосипед" _— which is "Given" information _—_would be"*The* bike" and not "a bike".


Yes, you're right. Translating in English it will be _*the* bike_ indeed. We just don't use articles. Sometimes we use pronouns instead: "_*этот* велосипед у меня (I have *this* bike)_" or "_*тот* велосипед у меня (I have *that* bike)_", but in other cases it can be just implied.


----------



## Gale_

Angelo di fuoco said:


> A case when you have to drop the copula verb (in present tense) is when you speak about the state of your health: у меня ангина, у меня рези в желудке, у меня хорошее самочувствие.


Yes. Because in these cases you accent not on the fact of possession, but describe your state or feelings.


Angelo di fuoco said:


> Although it's no longer possible to use the verb to have as a verb of possession in constructions of the type "I have" except a few set phrases, sometimes (I cannot say exactly in which cases) you can say "(у меня) имеется" or, "имеется в наличии".
> "Мы имеем" is an expression when you check the items of a list.


Of course you can. Mostly it is used in official speech such as articles, tasks, documents or reports, but sometimes in private life too (with some official accent).
_В нашем распоряжении имеется ...
На сегодняшний день мы имеем ..._
"Имеется" is closer to "есть", but "мы имеем" is classic "we have", although it seems to me that in English in such cases the turn "there is/are" is more used.


----------



## muhahaa

francisgranada said:


> Only for corectness: I don't speak all the Turkic and Uralic languages, of course (mamma mia ...), so I cannot guarantee the _total absence_ of some "habere" verb in all of them ... But the "existential clause" (the verb "to be") is the typical or "natural" way to express the possession in these languages (including my mother tongue).



Proto-IE lacked the habere verb as well: all the different IE branches use a separate verb root for this purpose, however the roots have similar meanings (to take, to hold), so the different IE branches must have calqued the habeo construction from each other.

According to WALS, the Ob-Ugrian languages (Khanty and Mansi) use a habeo construction.
http://wals.info/feature/117A?s=20&...t=map&v1=c00d&v2=cd00&v3=cf6f&v4=cff0&v5=c000

There is also a habeo verb arising in Finnish: _omata_. Its usage is marginal compared to the locative construction.



francisgranada said:


> I don't "feel" this problem with the accusative (according to post #9), but also e.g. "I (can) see the house". _House _is the object in accusative, but the verb "to see" does not describe any action/process/event, instead, my "status" or "capacity".


Nominative-accusative languages don't care about the activeness of nouns. Thus, both the construction types "I like cats" (patient as subject/nominative, "agent" as object/accusative)  and "Me like cats" (patient as object and "agent" as subject) are found in nominative-accusative languages, because the cases do not carry the idea of activeness. The cats cause the state of liking, so I consider them as the agent-like party of the sentence.

Active-stative languages have active and inactive cases. Proto-IE was likely active-stative, which is why many IE languages have the grammatical gender system where neuters (nouns considered to be always inactive) lack separate nominative and accusative cases. Active-stative languages tend to not agentize the patient, so "I have a cat" and "I like cats" are unlikely in them.


----------



## Gale_

Gale_ said:


> "Имеется" is closer to "есть", but "мы имеем" is  classic "we have", although it seems to me that in English in such cases  the turn "there is/are" is more used.


By the way, if somebody is interested, I've recollected one more "have"  construction, which more describes an occurence or existence than  possession. I mean the expression "_иметь место_" corresponding to the English "_to take place_" or "_to have a place_". 
Also there is such expression as "_имеет быть_" which describes some forthcoming occurence. For example "_заседание имеет быть в пятницу в 3-й аудитории" _i.e. "_заседание состоится в пятницу ..._ ". 
It's an official speech as well. The first expression is more popular now than the second one.



muhahaa said:


> Active-stative languages tend to not agentize the patient, so "I have a cat" and "I like cats" are unlikely in them.


I really like this idea 
And I even think that perhaps it's not as much a linguistic influence of eastern neighbours as a part of own national philosophy, could it be so? I mean that the Orient more tends to contemplation generally, and Eastern countries including Russia are closer to it, and so their language just conforms to their mentality.


----------



## francisgranada

muhahaa said:


> ...  According to WALS, the Ob-Ugrian languages (Khanty and Mansi) use a habeo construction ...


I'll look up for details in my materials about the Ob-Ugrian languages, however I think that the habeo construction is not "primary" in these lanuages. But we should discuss it in a separate thread, I suggest ...


> There is also a habeo verb arising in Finnish: _omata_. Its usage is marginal compared to the locative construction.


Something similar exists also in Hungarian (the verb_ bír_).


> Nominative-accusative languages don't care about the activeness of nouns. Thus, both the construction types "I like cats" (patient as subject/nominative, "agent" as object/accusative)  and "Me like cats" (patient as object and "agent" as subject) are found in nominative-accusative languages, because the cases do not carry the idea of activeness. The cats cause the state of liking, so I consider them as the agent-like party of the sentence.


I fully agree, that's why my previous posts #9 and #15 (as reaction to Giorgio Spizzi's interesting observations).


----------



## Encolpius

According to this Czech article Old Church Slavic knew the construction "it is to me", but I am not sure how common it was, but it can just explain why it STILL exists in Russian. Old Church Slavic: _bǫdetъ eteru člověku sъto ovecъ [modern Czech: bude jinému člověku sto ovcí] > another man will have 100 sheep. _
bude = will be, jinému člověku = to this man (dative)


----------



## Maroseika

Encolpius said:


> According to this Czech article Old Church Slavic knew the construction "it is to me", but I am not sure how common it was, but it can just explain why it STILL exists in Russian.


Мне отмщение, аз воздам...
Vengeance is Mine; I will repay...
(Romans 12:19)


----------



## Dhira Simha

francisgranada said:


> Giorgio Spizzi has expressed a “general hypothesis” or "scheme", not especially for the Russian or Slavic languages. I.e. he has told that constructions like "mihi est (Latin)", "у меня есть (Russian)", "nekem van (Hungarian)" ... seem to be generally "primary", that is, chronologically/historically/naturally more "ancient" than the appearance of verbs meaning _habere, to have, иметь _... etc.



This is correct.  The  construction "_я имею / ja imeju_" is not good Russian: *я имею книгу / *ja imeju knigu 'I have a book' sounds foreign and is ambiguous .  The correct form is the construction with Genitive:  _у меня есть"/ u menja jest'_ 'I have'.

 Eastern Slavonic languages  have a remarkable affinity to Sanskrit  where possession was expressed in a similar way:  e. g. _r__ā__jasya_ [_r__ā__j__a_ 'king', Gen. m., sing.] _kumbham_ [kumbha 'pitcher', Acc., m., sing.] _asti_ (or _bhavati_) [as 'to be', 3 P, sing, Pres.] Literally: "Raja's is the pitcher". Compare the Rus.: "_u radží jest' kubok_". The construction with_ imet'_ (cp.  Skr.  _yam- _'to hold) which  became widespread in Southern and Western Slavonic languages  is, in my opinion, a later development.


----------



## francisgranada

Encolpius said:


> ... Old Church Slavic knew the construction "it is to me", but I am not sure how common it was, but it can just explain why it STILL exists in Russian. Old Church Slavic: _bǫdetъ eteru člověku sъto ovecъ [modern Czech: bude jinému člověku sto ovcí] > another man will have 100 sheep. _
> bude = will be, jinému člověku = to this man (dative)


Yes, but I can still see a "problem", as have stated it in my post #11: 


> ... I think that the Latin "mihi est" ... does not correspond _exactly _to the Russian "у меня есть", but rather to "_мнe _есть" (dative). I don't know if it is important here, but from the point of view of a possible Turkic (or other) influence this may be relevant ...


In other words, in Russian we have "_u čelověka sto ovec" _instead of "_čelověku sto ovec"_, "_у меня_" instead of _"мнe" .... _that does not correspond exactly to the Old Church Slavic (IE ?) construction, but it rather seems to be an "innovation".


----------



## Dhira Simha

> "In other words, in Russian we have "_u čelověka sto ovec" _instead of "_čelověku sto ovec"_, "_у меня_" instead of _"мнe" .... _that does not correspond exactly to the Old Church Slavic (IE ?) construction, but it rather seems to be an "innovation"."


I need to ponder on this but I cannot quite agree with the way you set up the argumentation.  Old Church Slavonic (O.C.S) is not the "proto-Slavonic" (which might be a fathom anyway). It is based on a Southern Slavonic dialect (Solun). As a literary language it did influence Slavonic dialects, particularly  Southern and Eastern ones but  they do not derive from it.  Therefore, the existence of the dative construction in O.C.S. does not automatically mean that this was the "original" form.  As I said earlier (#27), the construction with Genitive is common to Vedic  which is definitely closer in time to the hypothetical IE. In the Rus. construction "_u čelověka sto ovec" _the"innovation" may be the use of the preposition "_u_" which is in line with the general increase  of  the role of prepositions in Slavonic. Compare the obligatory use of prepositions in combination with the old Locative which was for this reason re-named  "Prepositional":  _дом dom_ [N.] and  _в доме v dome_ [Prep.] "house - in house" vs. Vedic _damam_ [N.] and _dame _[L.] (id.) ).


----------



## learnerr

Hello,


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> What is not easy to understand is why the "possessed" should be in the accusative: "habere", "have", "haben", "avoir", "tener", etc., far from being transitive verbs, fulfil the function of describing not an action, a process, or an event but rather a state of things.


Why there is any problem with this? There are two things in this statement, they have to be said with different cases. The accusative case is the most natural one to express the "second" participant, i.e. one that does not control the situation.


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> "_у меня есть велосипед_" and "_у меня велосипед_"
> 
> I had never reached the point where one _actually sees_ such difference. I imagine that a possible way of rendering the difference in Italian might be, respectively, "Ho *la/una* bici" and "Я не езжу на автобусе; ho la bici". In other words I suspect that in the first sentence I might use either the definite or the indefinite article, while in the second the definite article would be felt as the "natural" choice.



The difference there is, but it does not reflect anything with articles; for example, "у меня машина, дача, велосипед" simply means that the person is enumerating his goods. I think that there is no feature in the Russian language that would correspond in any definitive way to the notion of article. We don't express definiteness in any way. The difference was described by Gale_, and it is in what happens to be purportedly expressed, the fact of the thing's existence at my place, or the thing itself. By the way, the verb may go to the end of the sentence even more naturally: alone, with no context, "у меня штаны есть" is a lot more natural than both "у меня есть штаны" and "у меня штаны", which sound like examples from foreigners' book.


> Regarding the third sentence, "_велосипед у меня_", I think we are in front of a completely different communicative scenario:


There are three possible senses:
1. The most literal sense: the bike is in my charge. Why it is the most literal? Because "у" means "at", so what the whole means is that the bike is currently at my position, even if it is not mine. This is the most transparent sense.
2. I am the one having a bike (or the bike). Here the bike is a given information, but it does not have to be definite because of that; a non-definite 'idea of bike' can well be 'pregiven'.
3. What I have is a bike (or the bike). This is possible if the stress is on the word "велосипед".


> The Italian translation would be "*La* bici è mia" with the tonic on "mia".


This translation is impossible; it could be translated back only as "велосипед принадлежит мне" (or "это мой велосипед"). Mind you, the Russian construction is a regular copular phrase, it does not carry by itself the sense of possession. Just sometimes it happens to be used in the same contexts and situations where other languages would use a word that has such sense. Apart from "у", there are also other prepositions that can be used this way, their use is just less common (like "со мной эти люди", "под этими ящиками яма", "инструменты в коробке" or "эта работёнка не для меня").


----------



## fdb

Maroseika said:


> Мне отмщение, аз воздам...
> Vengeance is Mine; I will repay...
> (Romans 12:19)



Romans 12:19 εμοι εκδικησις εγω ανταποδωσω is an explicit quotation from Deut. 32:35 לִי נָקָם וְשִׁלֵּם, with the same construction in all three languages. In my view this does not prove anything about OCS.


----------

