# il faut / may



## ThomasK

This is about two modalities: necessity and possibility (NEC/ POS).

The question then is whether you have modals or special one-word verbs allowing to
-  translate necessity using an impersonal construction in your language, as in French* 'il faut' ["it must"/ it is necessary] ? *
- distinguish possibility from capacity, as  in English: *he can come vs. *_*may come *? 

Dutch : _
- NEC : no, only paraphrase (_het is noodzakelijk_, it is necessary)
- POS : k_unnen c_an be used to express possibily, but not always.


----------



## ({[|]})

Russian:


ThomasK said:


> This is about two modalities: necessity and possibility (NEC/ POS).
> 
> The question then is whether you have modals or special one-word verbs allowing to
> -  translate necessity using an impersonal construction in your language, as in French* 'il faut' ["it must"/ it is necessary] ? *


A great lot of them! "Надо", "нужно", "следует" V, "полагается" V, "требуется" V, "приходится" V, "обязательно", "стоит" V, "дóлжно" (sounds antiquated), "необходимо" (may sound bureaucratic), "следовает" V (used jokingly, is incorrect), and more. They all mean "one needs"/"one must"/"one should", with variations in shade (the variations mostly have to do with the causes of the necessity). Not all of these words are verbs, though. I marked the verbs with the letter "V" afterwards.


ThomasK said:


> - distinguish possibility from capacity, as  in English: *he can come vs. *_*may come *? _


No. The "may"/"can" difference is one of the problems that Russian learners of English struggle with.

Mr. Onion


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks. But can you also literally translate the un-personal "it must", "it obliges me to"? Or does the "one" here refer to circumstances or something like that? Does that imply that 'have to' has to be used in Englsh when translating all those ? 

Do you use the same verb then? I notice that in some cases in Dutch our kunnen sounds awkward, especially in a negative form.


----------



## ({[|]})

ThomasK said:


> Thanks. But can you also literally translate the  un-personal "it must", "it obliges me to"? Or does the "one" here refer  to circumstances or something like that? Does that imply that 'have to'  has to be used in Englsh when translating all those ?


un-personal "it must" in English?  I should have missed it.  I don't know, what is it. Could you please provide an example?

The Russian impersonal constructions I listed are structurally all the same as "il faut"/"il est nécessaire"/"it is  necessary" — that is, they are completely impersonal. I used the English  words I could remember to say, that those are the modalities that are  reflected in the Russian words.
To translate these all in  English, one should use imagination ("переводя их на английский, нужно  использовать воображение") — there is no universal rule, it's  context-dependent. "Тебе надо" often translates as "you have to",  indeed; but not always. For example: "I need to wash my car" — "мне нужно помыть машину"; "It is necessary to get the visa before travelling" — "Перед поездкой требуется получить визу".



ThomasK said:


> Do you use the same verb then? I notice that in  some cases in Dutch our kunnen sounds awkward, especially in a negative  form.


It's different in personal and impersonal sentences. In personal  sentences we usually just use the verb "мочь" ("pouvoir") and negate it freely. It's the same for both "may" and "can" situations. Of course, there is always a way to describe the situation in a more detailed way, so that to translate the difference between the two English modalities (for example, "он не должен играть в футбол", lit. "he is not obliged to play football", but really it means "he may not play football").

But impersonal sentences ("it is [not] possible", "it  is [not] permitted", "il [ne] peut [pas]") are generally translated,  using "можно" when positive, and "нельзя", when negative. Again, it's the same for both "may" and "can" situations. But  there are also other impersonal words to express [im]possibility, permission  or prohibition, like [не]возможно ("it's [im]possible to", "one could [not]"),  "разрешается", "разрешено" (both mean "it is permitted to"), "запрещается", "запрещено" (both mean "it is forbidden to"), "не стоит" ("there is no need  to", sometimes it is used to mean: "you may not"), "не получается" ("I/you/he is struggling with", that is "I can't") etc, I can't remember  more, but I'm sure there are others, we like to use impersonal  constructions.


----------



## ThomasK

I apologize: I just tried to translate "il faut" in English. But I think your words are what I meant, indeed. --- So you use impersonal constructions only to say: He may come ?


----------



## ({[|]})

We use impersonal constructions for almost everything — this is a  distinctive trait of our language.  But "he may come" would be most  likely translated as "он может прийти", the same for "he can come".

But it's a good observation, I didn't notice it before: indeed, impersonal constructions tend to express the "may" situation. For example "ему можно заходить" would mean "he may come in", and only that! "He is able to come" would be "он в состоянии прийти" or, again, "он может прийти" — both are personal constructions... But "можно видеть" means "one could see", so impersonal constructions can mean "can" as well.


----------



## ThomasK

The latter addition is quite interesting. I think indeed that (some forms of)  modality is often 'naturally' expressed using an impersonal  subject, as generally there is something obliging or forcing us, or allowing us to do something. When I say 'I have to do that', it might be analysed as 'X (whatever: destiny, before God/ gods, ...) forces/ makes me do something'. But I wonder whether this phenomenon is recurrent in other languages...


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> This is about two modalities: necessity and possibility (NEC/ POS).
> 
> The question then is whether you have modals or special one-word verbs allowing to
> -  translate necessity using an impersonal construction in your language, as in French* 'il faut' ["it must"/ it is necessary] ?
> *- distinguish possibility from capacity, as  in English: *he can come vs. *_*may come *?
> 
> Dutch :
> _- NEC : no, only paraphrase (_het is noodzakelijk_, it is necessary)
> - POS : k_unnen c_an be used to express possibily, but not always.


Hi TK,

Yes we do in Greek:

-Necessity: «Πρέπει» /'prepi/ --> _it must_; impersonal verb (3rd p. present indicative) of the Classical verb «πρέπω» 'prĕpō --> _to befit, meet, be worthy of_, PIE base *per-, _through_.
-Possibility: «Μπορεί» /bo'ri/ --> _it may_; impersonal verb (3rd p. present indicative) of the Byzantine/Modern Greek form of the Classical verb «εὐπορέω/εὐπορῶ» eupŏ'rĕō [uncontracted]/eupŏ'rō [contracted] --> _to find a way, find means, prosper, thrive_. After influence by the masculine noun «ἔμπορος» 'ĕmpŏrŏs, /'emboros/ in modern pronunciation --> _merchant, trader_, and due to false etymology, in Byzantine Greek the verb became «ἐ*μ*πορέω/ἐ*μ*πορῶ», Modern Greek «μπορώ» /bo'ro/.
Necessity can also be expressed by using the periphrasis «είναι ανάγκη» /'ine a'naɲɟi/ --> _it's necessary_
«Ανάγκη» /a'naɲɟi/ (fem.) --> _force, constraint, necessity_ a Classical feminine noun «ἀνάγκη» ă'nāngē with the same meanings and with obscure etymology.


----------



## francisgranada

Hungarian

jö*het* - he can/may come (he is able/allowed ...)
*kell *jönnie - he has to come (it's necessary)
*lehet *jönnie - he can come (it's possible)
*szabad *jönnie - he may come (it's allowed)
*muszáj *jönnie - he must come (it's obligatory)
*tud *jönni - he may come (rather capacity)

Explanation:

jönni - to come, infinive
jönni*e* - "he to come", infinive plus the personal suffix *-e* (3rd pers. sg. in this example)  
jö*het* - "he can/may come", *hat/het* is a formant expressing the possibility of the action
kell, lehet - impersonal forms (3. pers. sg) from kelleni (to be needed/necessary), lehetni (to be able to)
muszáj, szabad - impersonal forms, only these forms do exist (no infinitive nor conjugation exist)
tud - lit. "he knows", "el sabe" 3. pers.sg. from tudni (lit. to know, saber, sapere, wissen ...)

If we ommit the pers. suffix added to the infinitive, then the phrases become impersonal, e.g.* 
lehet jönni* - it is possible to come 
*kell jönni* _-_ it is necessary to come


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, both of you. Now, as for Greek: does that imply that there is no personal modal verb 'must', Apmoy? That you can't translate 'He must' literally? 

As for Hungarian: I see you refer to 'formants' and to some 'fossilic verbs'. So there is no personal must form, I guess. You cannot literally translate: 'You must come', you rather say: 'It is necessary for you to come'. Or am I mistaken ? I am looking forward to understanding this better !


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> Thanks, both of you. Now, as for Greek: does that imply that there is no personal modal verb 'must', Apmoy? That you can't translate 'He must' literally?


Exactly, we translate the English "I must, you must, s/he/it must etc" into Greek, with the impersonal «πρέπει» i.e. Eng: He must go; Gr: «Πρέπει να πάει» ("it's obligatory to go")


----------



## ThomasK

I am really amazed at that, but somehow I had the feeling that even in Dutch there is some three-fold relationship implied in obligation and possibility. Thanks !


----------



## Tchesko

Czech:
- NEC: same as in Dutch ("je třeba + inf." = het is nodig / it is necessary)
- POS: we do have 2 distinct verbs: "moct" = kunnen / can; "smět" = may -- although in spoken language we usually use "moct" instead of "smět" (the latter is considered a bit old-fashioned).


----------



## ThomasK

That might be interesting information, Tchesko: could it be that the difference is considered smaller, too small, too difficult?


----------



## Tchesko

No, the difference in meaning hasn't diminished. In my opinion, it's really about the verb "smět" being considered a bit stilted.


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ... As for Hungarian: I see you refer to 'formants' and to some 'fossilic verbs'. So there is no personal must form, I guess. You cannot literally translate: 'You must come', you rather say: 'It is necessary for you to come'. Or am I mistaken ? I am looking forward to understanding this better !



 You are right, there is no personal must, though the construction is a bit different as in other languages, because in Hungarian we can  practically conjugate the infinitive (!), so the result is a certain “personalization” of the entire expression:
muszáj jönn*öm* (I must come)
muszáj jönn*öd* (you must come)
muszáj jönn*ie* (he must come)
etc.

Without the personal suffix, the phrase becomes impersonal:
muszáj jönni (it is necessary to come, one must come ...)

In this construction it is not so important, if muszáj is a verb or not. Adjectives work as well, e.g.:
szükséges jönn*öm *("it is necessary for me to come", szükséges = necessary)
fontos jönn*öm *("it is important for me to come", fontos = important)
etc.


As to "can/may", the verb is normally conjugated, but the aspect of "possibility" is expressed by the affix "hat/het" instead of an extra verb:
jö*het*ek (I can/may come)
jö*het*sz (you can/may come)
jö*het* (he can/may come)
etc.

_________________________________
P.S. Interesting:
As the English has lost the personal endings of verbs, if we change a little the word order, the Hungarian and English expressions become formally almost identical, independently on the origin of the components: 
muszáj jönn*öm* - must come *I*
muszáj jönn*öd* - must come *you
*etc.


----------



## ({[|]})

Thomas,


ThomasK said:


> Does that imply that 'have to' has to be used in Englsh when translating all those ?





francisgranada said:


> he has to come (it's necessary)


Now that I think about it, it looks like indeed the Russian impersonal constructions tend to express necessity rather than obligatoriness, to my surprise I would say. To express obligatoriness, we would use the short adjective "должен", that is used much like the French verb "devoir" (maybe a calque?).

Eg,

"He must come." — "Он должен прийти."
"He should come." — "Он должен прийти."
"He has to come." (for this phrase too!) — "Он должен прийти."
"It is very probable that he'll come" — "Он должен прийти." (usually we use "наверное" or "вероятно" to express this meaning, but in this sentence the word "должен" just fits)

But again, the modalities may just mix up, and it's difficult to say, what construction is used for what. For example, we may politely express obligatoriness, indicating the need: "нужно, чтобы ты пришёл" — "it is necessary that you come" => "you should come".


----------



## ThomasK

I am not sure I understand well: is должен an adjective, as you compare to the French verb (!) devoir. I could imagine some kind of adverb though used as an alternative for a modal here. 

Your last point is quite right: we can formulate permission as capacity as well, in order to avoid looking too bossy, too hierarchical, etc. !


----------



## francisgranada

должен is an adjective, originally past participle of the verb corresponding to the French devoir.

P.S. Hi ThomasK, did my last post about Hungarian help a bit or it's too complicated?


----------



## ({[|]})

ThomasK said:


> I am not sure I understand well: is должен an adjective, as you compare to the French verb (!) devoir.


Easily! We just use the adjective predicatively — this is a very usual practice in Russian!

Teachers usually explain, that in the present tense the verb "to be" is silent ("omitted", they say), compare: 1) "этот автомобиль [] быстрый" ("this car [] quick") = 2) "этот автомобиль есть быстрый" ("this car is quick"). We use the 1) practically always.

BTW, "должен" is not the only short adjective that may command verbs. Another example is "мал" ("little"): "Мал *ты* ещё с большими дядями *играть*." — "*You* are too little yet *to play* with big guys".


----------



## ThomasK

It is quite informative, well-formulated - and stimulating or inspirational. I just try to understand well, and therefore ask those extra questions...


----------



## francisgranada

Constructions like "Он [есть] должен прийти" exist also in English, e.g. "He is allowed to come", "He is obliged to come" etc. The only difference is, that Russian normally does not use the verb _to be_ which, I think, is not very relevant from the point of view of the original question.


----------



## ThomasK

Not quite relevant indeed, but on the other hand we have something like _Het is noodzakelijk dat _... but my feeling is that that is a fairly formal alternative for _moeten_, whereas _il faut _in French is more common. I am mainly asking those questions to see if that word has a special status...


----------



## ({[|]})

francisgranada said:


> Constructions like "Он [есть] должен прийти" exist also in English, e.g. "He is allowed to come", "He is obliged to come" etc. The only difference is, that Russian normally does not use the verb _to be_ which, I think, is not very relevant from the point of view of the original question.


Er... Well, yes, and the other difference is that in the English phrase there is a person who _allows_ or _obliges_ to come, or, at least, there is a trace of such person, and in the Russian phrase there is no such person, not even a trace.


ThomasK said:


> I am mainly asking those questions to see if that word has a special status...


Yes, it does. One pecularity is that this adjective commands a verb, it is rather rare; in #20 I gave an example of another adjective that can be used in a "modal" sense (though generally that adjective — "мал" — is not used modally), and I have yet another example: the word "готов", that means "ready" (quite modal adjective in meaning, I'd say!) All the three "modal" adjectives are short ("должен", "мал", "готов") — I mean, in Russian many adjectives (mostly quantitive ones) have not only the full form (the basic one), but also the short form. There are also other "modal" short adjectives, now I can think of "способен" ("is able to", "is expected to", Fr. "sait"), for example.

Another pecularity is that the meaning of the adjective "должен" (short form) differs from the meaning of the adjective "должный" (full form). The meanings of both words can easily be traced to the meaning of the noun "долг" — "debt", "duty" (add the suffix "-н-" that makes adjectives from nouns, change "г" for "ж" (usual consonant mutation), and it's ok); but the short adjective means "one who has a debt or a duty", "one who owes", "one who should/has to do something" (like «конный» may mean "one who has a horse", «конь» being "horse"), and the full adjective means "that may be described as a debt or as a duty", or, shortly, "due" (like «частный» means "partial", «часть» being "part"). This is exceptional, usually short and full adjectives mean the same and are only used differently in sentences. I think, the cause of this exception is that the word "должен" is used often, and is used as a function word..

Regards


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks. Yet, it is still quite difficult for me to precisely understand how I could view 'the adj. commanding the verb' as I am not familiar with Russian tall. I thought I was able to see  a comparison with _allow _and _oblige _in English, one of which would be impossible in Dutch indeed (_toegelaten/ permitted _could not used literally when translating _he is allowed to _... We have to use _he gets permission to,_ or we'd have to use a dative/ ind. object:_ hem werd toegestaan te ...). _The parallel would be that ungrammatical things seem possible. But see last paragraph.  

But maybe the adjective is like a predicate referring to an inf., _to be _being left out? There might be some kind of parallel with Dutch, but then it is an adverb: we can translate 'we love swimming' as 'we swim with pleasure' (we zwemmen graag). _(I have a Slovenian student who perhaps recognizes this mechanism and can then explain it to me though - but thanks a lot for your information)

_The semantic variation between short and full forms is also interesting, and I think you are quite right. I think it is a common phenomenon that some construction/ sentences are no longer anaylysed after some time and thus get a different meaning. I think of _maybe/ may-be_, _misschien _in Dutch (_mag-geschieden_, may-happen) in Dutch. Quite some sentence adverbs are based on verbs for example. 

Thanks a lot for the information.


----------



## ({[|]})

Thomas,


ThomasK said:


> Thanks. Yet, it is still quite difficult for me to precisely understand how I could view 'the adj. commanding the verb' as I am not familiar with Russian tall.


This mechanism is present in English too. "Я готов идти" translates in English as "I am ready to go", the structure is the same, "ready" is an adjective, "готов" is an adjective too. Now, substitute "готов" with "должен", and you will get "я должен идти", that may be translated as "I have to go", or "I must go", or "I should go".


----------



## Favara

*Catalan* uses _cal_, 3rd p. s. from verb _caldre_ (meaning "to be necessary", Latin _calere_: to be hot, to be urgent, to be necessary).

_*Cal* que ploga enjorn_. -> It*'s necessary* that it rains soon.
_*Ha de*_ _ploure enjorn._ -> It *must* rain soon (works for both obligation and wish). _Haver/haure de, _literally "to have to".
_*Pot*_ _ploure enjorn._ -> It *can*/*may* rain soon. _Poder_, Vulgar Latin _potere_.
_*Pot ser*__ que ploga enjorn_ -> It *may* rain soon. ("can/may" + "be"). Main verb (_ploure_) in subjunctive (_ploga/plogui_). "It may be that it rains soon".
_*Potser* ploga enjorn_ -> It *may* rain soon. Same as the previous one, but both verbs have fused into an adverb (effectively "maybe").


----------



## francisgranada

({[|]});12277494 said:
			
		

> Er... Well, yes, and the other difference is that in the English phrase there is a person who _allows_ or _obliges_ to come, or, at least, there is a trace of such person, and in the Russian phrase there is no such person, not even a trace.


You are right, but here I only wanted to point out that similar constructions can be understood quite easily also from the point of view of the English (or non Slavic languages), too (the concrete meaning of verbs in the examples is an other question).



> I mean, in Russian many adjectives (mostly quantitive ones) have not only the full form (the basic one), but also the short form. There are also other "modal" short adjectives ...


 Etymologically the short forms are the "original", the long ones are created later and in some Slavic languages they have entirely substituted the "short" ones, while in other languages not, or at least not entirely. So I suppose that the difference in the _meaning _of "должный" and "должен" in Russian is of later date. E.g. in Slovak, _dlžen _and _dlžný _mean exactly the same, and _dlžen _has not acquired this modal aspect ("ja som dlžen" in the sense of "I have to/I must/should" is not used).


----------



## ThomasK

Russian: I see now. The modal verb becomes an adjective then. That seems quite different from any other functional obligation word I know. of course there is something like_ obliged to/ _Dutch _verplicht te_, but ... did I understand it used to be a verb?

Catalan: can you use it with a personal subject? I guess not. Any variant possible like _Il faut que tu ... ?_


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> ... Yet, it is still quite difficult for me to precisely understand how I could view 'the adj. commanding the verb' as I am not familiar with Russian tall. I thought I was able to see  a comparison with _allow _and _oblige _in English, one of which would be impossible in Dutch indeed (_toegelaten/ permitted _could not used literally when translating _he is allowed to _...


I have the feeling that we "overcomplicate" the question a little ... I can still see the comparison, even if concretely the Dutch _toegelaten _does not work in this case. E.g. in Italian (or Spanish), as construction, it could work: "[io] sono obbligato a ...". Of course, it doesn't mean exactly the same as "[io] devo", but as construction it _does _work. (I suppose, with some other verbs, in some other cases, also in Dutch.)

And I think that this is case also of the Russian "я должен". For comparison, in Slovak there is the verb _musieť (_normally conjugated) and corresponds exactly to the German _mussen_ (or Spanish _deber_). In Russian, such verb does not exist, so the same idea (I must, ich muss, ja musím, yo debo ...) is simply expressed by the expression "я должен", which, as construction, is analogous to "I am obliged / forced / allowed ..." (or even "I am ready ..." if we want to generalize this kind of constructions, being the past participles also adjectives).  

(The usage of the short and long adjectives in Russian is another question [not less important], but I think the detailed duscussion about it _here _does not help too much from the point of view of your original question).


----------



## mataripis

ThomasK said:


> This is about two modalities: necessity and possibility (NEC/ POS).
> 
> The question then is whether you have modals or special one-word verbs allowing to
> -  translate necessity using an impersonal construction in your language, as in French* 'il faut' ["it must"/ it is necessary] ?
> *- distinguish possibility from capacity, as  in English: *he can come vs. *_*may come *?
> 
> Dutch :
> _- NEC : no, only paraphrase (_het is noodzakelijk_, it is necessary)
> - POS : k_unnen c_an be used to express possibily, but not always.


In Tagalog, He can come= Siya ay makakarating. and He may come= Siya ay maaring makarating.The first one (necessity) and the second (There is possiblity) .He can= magagawa niya./   He may= Maari.Necessity= Kailangan/ Possibility= maaring mangyari


----------



## ({[|]})

ThomasK said:


> Russian: I see now. The modal verb becomes an  adjective then. That seems quite different from any other functional  obligation word I know. of course there is something like_ obliged to/ _Dutch _verplicht te_, but ... did I understand it used to be a verb?


No. I see no just way for "должен" to have anything to do with verbs.

Besides, why can't a noble adjective just take a verb or anything else and use it to exactify the meaning? For example:
- Joe, he's ready.
- Ready? Ready for what?
- Ready for cooking.
- What?!
- He's ready to cook for us!
- Ah... I thought, he's ready for a question or two...


ThomasK said:


> That seems quite different from any other functional  obligation word I know.


Obligation word — maybe. But please consider the adjective "able".

Also,  grammar doesn't exist in reality, right? "Noun", "adjective", "verb" —  those all are abstract words, that scientists use (and create) to generalize a lot of  various really existing facts about the use of a concrete language,  these words have no restrictions on their own. Of course, there are some  trends, some of them maybe reflect the real mechanism of the brain  machine of humane's (and some of them maybe not), but... As for  adjectives, even not all languages consider them as a separate word  class (for example, Ossetian treats them as mere nouns; and some  languages, as far as I know, do not separate verbs and adjectives).


----------



## ThomasK

I think we agree: linguistic categories are not universal indeed. I did not mean to say that an adj. does not have the verb's 'nobility', I was mainly trying to understand well how things worked grammatically, you see. Thanks.


----------



## sakvaka

"Il faut": Yes, and there are lots of alternatives.

_jnk täytyy / pitää / on pakko (is the obligation) / on välttämätöntä (is necessary) / on ~tAvA (is to ~)_

All of them are impersonal constructions since the target of obligation is not in accusative but in _genitive_ case.

_Sinun täytyy mennä kouluun._ 
you-GEN must go-INF school-ILLAT
You must ho to school.

The real subject is apparently missing. (Some earlier language theoretists considered the verb infinitive to be the real subject. According to them, genitive just indicates who's 'musting' it's all about. Modern grammar theory has introduced the notion of genitive subjects but the structure is, nevertheless, impersonal and takes impersonal objects: _Sinun täytyy syödä ruoka_, not _ruoan_).

May/can etc.


We have the verbs _voida_, _saada_, and _saattaa_.


*Hän voi tulla*.  
= He can come. / He may (or may not) come.  / He may (is allowed to) come.


*Hän saa tulla. *
= He may come. (He is / will be allowed to come.)


*Hän saattaa tulla. *
= He may come [or he may not come, who knows?]


Or then there are also the imperative forms:


_Tulkoon hän! May he come! / Let him come!_


----------



## Konanen

*Turkish:
*
_NEC:_
For necessarities, we have a few possibilities:

- Have the necessarity (in form as a noun with a possession suffix [My ...]) precede the word "*lâzım*", e.g.: "_Gitmem *lâzım*_" → My going *is necessary  *
  This word is derived from the Arabic لَازِمْ (lâzim), which basically means "it is necessary".


- The necessarity (as an infinite verb) is followed by the word "*zorunda*", which is conjugated with the defective verb "(to) be", e.g.: "_Gitmek *zorundayım*_" → To go *I-am-at-force*


- The necessarity (in noun-form with a possession suffix) is adjected with the word "*gerek*", which is derived from the Turkish verb "_gerekmek_" = (to) be necessary, e.g.: 
   "_Gitmem __*gerek*_" → My going is necessary

  Also, in addition to "*gerek*", you can use its verb, where you, then, can use every verbal tense the Turkish language offers you and therefore can get a whole lot of different meanings,
  as for example:

  Gitmem *gerekecek* → My going *will be necessary*, that is: "_I *will have to*_ _go_"
  Gitmem *gerekti* (stress on the "*i*") → My going *was necessary*, that is: "_I *had to *go_"




_POS:_
Possibilities can be expressed with such, as:

  - the word "mümkün", which follows a possessed noun: "_Gelmen *mümkün *mü?_" → Is your coming *possible*?
    This word is derived from the Arabic مُمْكِنْ (mumkin), which basically can be translated as "(it is) possible".

  - a verbal suffix, added to the verb itself, being -*bil*-. This is derived from the Turkish verb _bilmek_, meaning "(to) know" (Compare to French _savoir faire_).

    For example:
Gele*bil*irim → I shall *be able* to come around/I can come around; Gele*bil*iyorum → I am *(physically) able* to come around

    The thing  with -_bil_- is, you have to use the aorist tense (*geniş zaman*) with the verb, in order to get the general meaning of "_can do_". If you use the present tense (*şimdiki zaman*),
    you get the information about the general (physical/mental/financial/...) ability, but not if they *intend* to try.

    Compare:
"_Türkçe konuşabili*yor* musun?_" vs. "_Türkçe konuşabil*ir* misin?_" (-yor-, being the marker for present tense, and "-ir-", being the marker for aorist tense.)
    The first one meaning "Are you able to speak Turkish? (= Have you ever learnt the Turkish language?)",
whereas the latter means "Can you speak Turkish (with me, right now)?"

    Also, the negation of the -bil-suffix is also a different cup of tea:
*-bil-* drops, and instead comes a vowel of the minor vowel harmony, that is: *-a-* or *-e-*, and additionally receives the negation particle,
    which follows the great vowel harmony, that is *-mi-*/-*mı-*/*-mu**-*/*-mü-*, for example:

    "_Hayır, Türkçe konuş*amı*yorum_" → No, I cannot speak Turkish (for I have never learnt it/...)


----------



## Favara

ThomasK said:


> Catalan: can you use it with a personal subject? I guess not. Any variant possible like _Il faut que tu ... ?_


According to the Institut d'Estudis Catalans it's strictly impersonal, but actually in some dialects (the most conservative), or on a less formal register, it can be used with any subject, usually with a "feeble" pronoun as an indirect object. Valencian _Si (jo) no vos calc, no m'aviseu_ = "If I'm not necessary to you, don't call me" -> If you don't need me, don't call me.

And yes, there's also (in standard Catalan) _cal que tu..._


----------



## ThomasK

Well, I am impressed with these findings. The most striking aspect is that 'must' as a personal modal verb is not that common as it seems, whereas it does look like that when one knows some Germanic and Romanic languages. What that implies as for the worldview - of whether it allows for any  generalizations - is not clear to me. Somehow the impersonal expression of obligation and possibility seems to be the most natural to me. 

Finnish reminded me of Dutch. We can use a genitive in Dutch to refer to the source of the obligation, but in Finnish the genitive refers to the 'patiens', so that is different. 

But there is always the difference between English _must _and _have to_,the - so I'd call it - personal and impersonal obligation - and maybe the difference between _may _and _can_, the difference between (...) possibility and permission. 

So I hope I'll be allowed to check on this as well: do you translate in the same way

NECESS/ OBL
- y*ou must do it *(I want you to): OBL, personal
- *you have to do it* ; NECESS, not my wish

PERMISSION/ POSS
- *he may do it:* POSS
- h*e can do it: I* don't mind - PERM


----------



## Konanen

ThomasK said:


> NECESS/ OBL
> - y*ou must do it *(I want you to): OBL, personal
> - *you have to do it* ; NECESS, not my wish
> 
> PERMISSION/ POSS
> - *he may do it:* POSS
> - h*e can do it: I* don't mind - PERM



*Turkish:


*_*NEC:*
you must do:_
In addition to the aforementioned possibilities about NEC-constructions, one can also use a the "_necessitative_", a* gerund** construction* with the suffix for "_with_" (subjugated to the great vowel harmony), plus the defective verb "(to) be":

yapmak → (to) do
yapma → do [gerund]
...-li-/-lı-/-lu-/-lü- → from/with ...

"Yapma_lı_*sın*" → You must do! (Lit.: "You are with (to) do")

This construction is used, if something is *crucial* to be done, or (though not necessarily), if one wishes something to be done by someone.
Yet, we have no *set* extra form, if one wants someone else to do something.
One can also say: "_Bunu yapmanı istiyorum_" → I want you to do that (Lit.: This your-to-do I-want)


_
you have to do:_
See above.





*NEC:
*_he may do:_
See the aforementioned construction with -*bil*- (Post #35)




_he can do (permission/jussive):_
This is very interesting in the Turkish language!

Although, we have* optative tense* (let XYT do! / XYZ may do!), it is quite obsolete in the 3rd person and has an ancient taste to itself.
In the 1st persons, it substitutes their lacking imperative, so "_Yapayım_" can mean "I shall do" or "Let me do".
Yet "_Yapa!_" (3rd person singular optative of "yapmak") is, as noted above, quite obsolete, and mostly one uses the imperative of the 3rd person singular: "_Yapsın!_"

Therefore:

You can/shall do (I don't care): "_Yapasın!_", as opposed to "_Yap_!" → "Do!"


----------



## Ko-lo-bok-

Hi, Thomas,


ThomasK said:


> I am not sure I understand well: is должен an adjective, as you compare to the French verb (!) devoir.


This is just a case, where an adjective is used to express an action of somebody, somebody's active state. Very unusual for Russian: I can't remember of any other such adjective (though there may exist some), usually verbs are employed to express actions and active conditions.

Колобок.


----------



## ThomasK

As for Russian: something like 'He is busy doing something' ? 

Turkish: it reminds me of 'You _have to _do it', or the English 'You are to do it', though different, I suppose... As for the optative, I suppose the subject is a third person acotr, but not something like impersonal 'il' in 'i faut', kiond of the cause or source of the act...


----------



## Ko-lo-bok-

ThomasK said:


> As for Russian: something like 'He is busy doing something' ?


Yes, in a similar manner... When a person has got to do something, he or she has to be active, and think, and worry, otherwise nothing will happen out of his or her being obliged to do something.


----------



## ThomasK

As for Hungarian, FG: I have been trying hard, but in itself it is clear, but I'd like to dig deeper. I mean: normally an in-finitive is infinite, so not conjugate-able, but yours is different. However, is that still an infintive then or is it a finite form? Not that important, except if there were some differnet view on things behind it. You do feel it is impersonal, don't you? Rather like _it is necessary for you to come _?

The het looks like an infix to me, or a grammatical ending, like the French _je te le donnerais_, which means_ I would give it to you, _but combines _would + V _into one verb. Would that be a correct way of viewing things in Hungarian? In that case the form is not impersonal in my view.

I remembered _*es bedürft *_in German: not so common, but still possible, I believe.


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> As for Hungarian, FG: I have been trying hard, but in itself it is clear, but I'd like to dig deeper. I mean: normally an in-finitive is infinite, so not conjugate-able, but yours is different. However, is that still an infintive then or is it a finite form? Not that important, except if there were some differnet view on things behind it.


It's as if the infitive would be assigned to a person, like the nouns are assigned to persons by the possessive endings, e.g.: 

menne*m* - "for me" to go
menne*d* - "for you" to go
mennü*nk* - "for us" to go
...
levele*m*- my letter
levele*d*- your (thy) letter
levelü*nk *- our letter
...


> You do feel it is impersonal, don't you? Rather like _it is necessary for you to come _?


Not absolutely impersonal, but from a verbal point of view, I'd say yes. The meaning is aproximately as you have suggested, i.e. "for me" (or "to me") it is necessary ...  Finally, it is possible to "circumscribe" this construction also in Hungarian e.g.:

neki haza kell menni - he has to go home (_literally: _for-him home "necessary/needed ..." to-go) instead of "haza kell mennie" (though the latter is more "elegant").



> The het looks like an infix to me, or a grammatical ending, like the French _je te le donnerais_, which means_ I would give it to you, _but combines _would + V _into one verb. Would that be a correct way of viewing things in Hungarian?


The analogy with the Romance conditional is quite good, but there is a difference. The French conditional _a priori _contains information about the person and tense, while this_ hat/het _does not. Applying hat/het we obtain practically a new verb. The following examples, using the verb _lenni_ (to be), could help you to understand the substance:

le*het *- he/she/it can be, "maybe"
le*het*sz - you can be (present)
le*het*ek - I can be (present)
...
le*het*tem - I could be (past)
le*het*nék - I could be (conditional)
...
le*het*ni  (today practically not used) - to be able to 
le*het*őség - possibility
le*het*séges - possible
le*het*etlen - impossible

P.S. For comparison, see also the personal infinitive (_infinitivo pessoal_) in Portuguese, it's similar to the Hungarian "conjugated" infinitive.


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> As for Hungarian, FG: I have been trying hard, but in itself it is clear, but I'd like to dig deeper.* I mean: normally an in-finitive is infinite, so not conjugate-able*, but yours is different.



Hungarian seems to be similar to Finnish in this sense. As you may recall, we have three to five different infinitive forms (one of which is extinct), and most of them can be declined and converted to a range of structures. We can also assign infinitives by person.

Infinites and participles are _nominal forms_ in Finnish morphology. That is, they appear similar to nouns in the sense that they can be declined. I guess the situation is the same in Hungarian.

_But all of this would probably fit better into a separate thread._..


----------



## ThomasK

I suppose we could focus on these syntactic aspects at EHL, but I don't really wish to go into that too deep. It is very difficult for me to grasp precisely, and I am mainly interested in the impersonal aspect of the obligation, not in the full syntactic details. They do remind me to some extent of Lat. gerundium...


----------



## Encolpius

*Czech: *
1) *je třeba* + infinitive > necessity = il faut (je from the verb *být *[to be] + *třeba *adverb) 
2) *lze *(formal adverb) > possibility ( in Russian only negative form *нельзя *> no possibility)

Spanish *hay *[infinitive haber < Lat.: habere], Portuguese similar =  il faut


----------



## ThomasK

Don't both Spanish and Czech have a personal aux. of obligation?


----------



## Encolpius

ThomasK said:


> Don't both Spanish and Czech have a personal aux. of obligation?



No. 
Czech: Je třeba počkat. = Il faut attendre. 
Spanish: Hay que esperar. = Il faut attendre.
Hungarian: Várni kell. = Il faut attendre.


----------



## ThomasK

So not at all. I am quite surprised, but that is very interesting.


----------



## Konanen

ThomasK said:


> I remembered _*es bedürft *_in German: not so common, but still possible, I believe.



Dear ThomasK,

First, "bedürfen" is a strong verb in German and conjugates as "es bed*a*rf" in present tense.

Furthermore, "bedürfen" means "_(to) be need for (sth)_", e.g.:

"Es bedarf einer Erklärung":_ An explanation is required. _or _There is need for an explanation. 
_It is mostly used impersonal (es bedarf → _it needs/requires_), and the verb *bedürfen* itself is considered exalted.

One could not say: "Ich bedarf einer Erklärung." It sounds rather wrong.
More likely, one says: "Ich verlange eine Erklärung." → _I demand an explanation._


----------



## ThomasK

_Bedarf _: of course, thanks. It seeems strange that German still (?) has this unpersonal construction whereas Dutch does not (only things like 'it is necessary').


----------



## Encolpius

*Italian*: Bisogna + infinitive


----------

