# Romance languages: to go / to be (preterite)



## vince

Hello everyone,

I'd like to know if your language distinguishes between "to go" and "to be" in the preterite.

Because in Portuguese you have *eu vou* and *eu sou* but in preterite: *eu fui *only.

And according to many in a recent thread, in French you have *je vais* and *je suis* but in preterite (actually, present perfect) only: *je suis allé*. (Though archaic French had separate preterite forms "*je fus*" and "*j'allai*")

This is very interesting because in English I can clearly see a difference between "I went to school" and "I was at school"

So I'd like to know the situation in all Romance dialects/languages, Galician, Catalan, Occitan, Piedmontese, Standard Italian, Venetian, Sardinian, Romanian, etc.

Also if you speak a non-Romance language and your language has a comparable construction, post it here as well.

If your language distinguishes between ESSE and STARE (the two "to be" 's ), I'm talking about the esse version.

If your language no longer uses the preterite, then I'm talking about the present perfect (HABERE* + past participle)

*I am aware that some central dialects use ESSE for some verbs and some western dialects use TENERE for all verbs


----------



## diegodbs

In Spanish there are two verbs (ser/estar) for English "to be". But we can't say "yo soy en el colegio" but "yo *estoy en* el colegio"

- I went to school = fui *al *colegio
- I was at school = estuve* en* el colegio

- I am at school = *estoy en* el colegio
- I am a student = *soy* estudiante
- I go to school = *voy al* colegio

 
Yo soy en el colegio
 

 
Yo fui en el colegio


----------



## Samaruc

In Catalan-Valencian, there are different forms for every one of these verbs (as in Spanish, there are two verbs meaning "to be"):

SER (to be): 
"vaig ser " or "fui"
"vares/vas ser" or "fores"
"va ser" or "fou"
"vàrem/vam ser" or "fórem"
"vàreu/vau ser" or "fóreu"
"varen/van ser" or "foren"

ESTAR (to be): 
"vaig estar" or "estiguí"
"vares/vas estar" or "estigueres"
"va estar" or "estigué"
"vàrem/vam estar" or "estiguérem"
"vàreu/vau estar" or "estiguéreu"
"varen/van estar" or "estigueren"

ANAR (to go): 
"vaig anar" or "aní"
"vares/vas anar" or "anares"
"va anar" or "anà"
"vàrem/vam anar" or "anàrem"
"vàreu/vau anar" or "anàreu"
"varen/van anar" or "anaren"

As you can see, there are two different ways to express the same tense. The first one is the "passat perifràstic" (the most used and regular) and the second one is the "passat simple" (more literary and irregular).


----------



## ivanbcn

Hallo
In Italian there is a clear morphological distinction between _essere_ e _andare_ in the past:

PASSATO PROSSIMO: Sono stato / Sono andato 
PASSATO REMOTO:               Fui / Andai

Instead it's different with _stare_ and _essere_: these are two morphologically different verbs in all the simple tenses and modes, but share the same forms with the compound forms, so:

PASSATO PROSSIMO (compound tense):   Sono stato = Sono stato 
PASSATO REMOTO (simple tense):                      Fui / Stetti

[Then, the use of the two types of past varies according to your origin:
I think PASSATO REMOTO is more used in the south and in formal written language (novels, newspapers ...) in Rome, we don't normally use it; you quote Venetian, I don't think they use PASSATO REMOTO when speaking, while in Sicily they do not use PASSATO PROSSIMO]  

Ciao
ivan


----------



## Mutichou

vince said:
			
		

> And according to many in a recent thread, in French you have *je vais* and *je suis* but in preterite (actually, present perfect) only: *je suis allé*. (Though archaic French had separate preterite forms "*je fus*" and "*j'allai*")


No! 
The present perfect of "être" (to be) is "j'ai été", and is still used.
And both "*je fus*" and "*j'allai*" are used (in written text).


----------



## Outsider

vince said:
			
		

> And according to many in a recent thread, in French you have *je vais* and *je suis* but in preterite (actually, present perfect) only: *je suis allé*. (Though archaic French had separate preterite forms "*je fus*" and "*j'allai*")


As Multichou has noted, French is an exception:

*être*: _j'ai été, tu as été, il a été, nous avons été, vous avez été, ils ont été_;

*aller*: _je suis allé, tu es allé, il est allé, nous sommes allés, vous êtes allés, ils sont allés_.

No resemblance. They even use different helping verbs.



			
				vince said:
			
		

> This is very interesting because in English I can clearly see a difference between "I went to school" and "I was at school"


"I was tired" is a better example. Remember that it's the essence-copula, derived from ESSE, which is affected. (If memory serves me, Spanish/Portuguese _ser_ is actually a blend of more than one Latin verb!)

Which brings me to another point. Because _ir_ usually refers to concrete things and _ser_ usually refers to abstract qualities, this coincidence of the two verbs in the preterite seldom, if ever, causes any ambiguity.


----------



## vince

Mutichou said:
			
		

> No!
> The present perfect of "être" (to be) is "j'ai été", and is still used.
> And both "*je fus*" and "*j'allai*" are used (in written text).



I am referring to "j'ai été " as in "J'ai été chez le docteur" (I was at the doctor) vs. "Je suis allé chez le docteur" (I went to the doctor's)

So it looks like Spanish and Portuguese have this ambiguity

"yo fui" can be "I went" (Je suis allé(e)) or "I was" (J'ai été). But since "I was at a place" can't take ESSE due to the STARE/ESSE distinction, from where does the ambiguity arise?


----------



## diegodbs

vince said:
			
		

> I am referring to "j'ai été " as in "J'ai été chez le docteur" (I was at the doctor) vs. "Je suis allé chez le docteur" (I went to the doctor's)
> 
> So it looks like Spanish and Portuguese have this ambiguity
> 
> "yo fui" can be "I went" (Je suis allé(e)) or "I was" (J'ai été). But since "I was at a place" can't take ESSE due to the STARE/ESSE distinction, from where does the ambiguity arise?


 
There is no possible ambiguity in a real situation.
Maybe an isolated sentence, with no other context, could be ambiguous.

- Fui el año pasado (Last year I was)
- Fui el año pasado (Last year I went)

In a real situation you would never say that, or if you say that sentence (Last year I was), the previous one makes it all clear what you mean.

A. ¿Has sido alguna vez empleado de Correos?
B. Fui el año pasado (I was)

A. ¿Has ido alguna vez a Egipto?
B. Fui el año pasado (I went)


----------



## vince

ah that is true

but how is it that both ser and ir took their preterite from the same ancient verb? I am guessin that there must have been some connection in the past.


----------



## diegodbs

> but how is it that both ser and ir took their preterite from the same ancient verb? I am guessin that there must have been some connection in the past.


 
Latin "to be"
*Perfect*

_fuī_
_fuístī_
_fuit_
_fúimus_
_fuístis_
_fuḗrunt_

Latin (to go)
*Perfect*

_iī_
_īstī_
_iit_
_íimus_
_īstis_
_iḗrunt_

I don't know the intermediate steps between Latin (ii, isti,..) and Spanish (fui, fuiste,...)

ii--> fui
isti--> fuiste
iit --> fue
iimus--> fuimos
istis--> fuisteis
ierunt--> fueron


----------



## robbie_SWE

In Romanian (to be _*"a fi"*) _(N.B. pronouns are not necessary, just like in Italian). 

*IMPERFECT*
erai 
era 
eram 
erati
erau

*
PERFECT COMPUS
am fost 
ai fost 
a fost 
am fost 
ati fost
au fost
eram 

*
*PERFECT SIMPLU*
fusei 
fusesi 
fuse 
fuseram 
fuserati 
fusera

*MAI-MULT-CA-PERFECT*
fusesem 
fusesesi 
fusese 
fuseseram 
fuseserati 
fusesera

In Romanian (to go *"a merge"*) (N.B. the Romanian word "_a merge_" derives from the Latin word *mergere*). 

*IMPERFECT*
mergeam 
mergeai
mergea 
mergeam 
mergeati 
mergeau

*PERFECT COMPUS*
am mers 
ai mers 
a mers 
am mers 
ati mers 
au mers

*PERFECT SIMPLU*
mersei 
mersesi 
merse 
merseram 
merserati 
mersera

*MAI-MULT-CA-PERFECT*
mersesem 
mersesesi 
mersese 
merseseram 
merserati 
mersesera

Romanian has also an additional verb for ""to go" and that is *"a duce"*, but it has another meaning. Do you need more examples?? 

 robbie


----------



## vince

Cool, so the infinitive of "to be" in Romanian is "a fi"? This might be the verb where the fu/fo forms come from in the other Romance languages!

a fi is the only Romanian verb that has these fu forms, right?


----------



## robbie_SWE

vince said:
			
		

> Cool, so the infinitive of "to be" in Romanian is "a fi"? This might be the verb where the fu/fo forms come from in the other Romance languages!
> 
> a fi is the only Romanian verb that has these fu forms, right?


 
The infinitive of "*to be*" is "*a fi*". But you can use it to create additional clauses. The conditional form is created by using the "fi". 

As fi vrut (I would have wanted)
As fi spus (I would have said). 

Does this make any sence? It's a hard language!!!


----------

