# To have in various languages (past, posession, existence)



## Peripes

Hello everybody,

While studying, I noticed that the verb _have_ and its analogs in other languages share some very specific functions, specifically: as an auxiliary to mark perfective aspect (finished actions in the past), to denote posession and to refer to the existence of something or a group of entities.

In English two of these are true, e.g.: _I'*ve* done so many things, She *has* a very cute boyfriend._ The last of these being replaced by the construction _there is/are.

_In Spanish also two of these are true (with the verb _haber_), e.g: _*He* trabajado mucho esta semana. *Hay* un gran número de estudiantes en la marcha._ The verb to show posession is _tener_, however, in old texts, _haber _used to show posession, as in phrases like: _*He* aquí a tu padre._

In French, all of these are true (with the verb _avoir_), e.g.: _J'*ai* assez mangé. Il y *a* du monde ici. Vous *avez* une belle maison._ These relationship is sort of natural, as both French and Spanish are Romance languages.

However, what struck me as odd (thinking it could be more than just a coincidence), is that in Mandarin (and probably Cantonese and other Chinese languages) the verb analog with _have_ shares these uses. E.g.:

我没*有*去。 I didn't go./I haven't gone.
她*有*一只猫。She has one cat.
桌子上*有*一本书。There is a book on the table.

Now, I want to ask you if there is really an explanation for this, as it seems to me that this verb and the idea of its functions seem to be tied together. Or if it's just a coincidence that the verbs are really similar.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Indeed the verb *有 *is used to denote possession and the existence of something as you show it in your 2nd and 3rd examples, but it cannot be an auxiliary , since  verbs are never conjugated. The sentence 我没有去 generally expresses a past event , but not because of 有 which is not linked up to the verb 去 , but to the negation 没. So the similarity is misleading in the third example.
Besides verbs as _avoir _can also express physical sensations as _J'ai faim_ , _j'ai soif _.... ( _tener _in Spanish ) , unlike  Chinese using specific verbs.


----------



## francisgranada

Slavic:

1. Possession - yes (this is the primary function of the verb)
Example from Slovak:
*Mám* knihu - *I have* a/the book

2. Perfective aspect - yes (generally not in the sense of the German/Romance axiliary verb _haben/haber/etc_...) 
Example from Slovak:
*Mám* kúpenú knihu (literally: "[*I*] *have* bought book") - this is not a past tense, it expresses rather the idea that the book _has been bought [by me]._

3. Existence - yes (but not in general and not in all the Slavic languages)  
Example from Polish:
Nie *ma* chleba (literally: "not *has* bread") - the meaning is "there's no bread", "no hay pan", "non c'è pane", ...


----------



## apmoy70

Most IE languages share the threefold function of the verb I guess, as does Greek:

V. *«έχω»* [ˈexo] < Classical v. *«ἔχω» ékʰō* --> _to possess, retain, have_ (PIE *seǵʰ-, _to hold, have_ cf Skt. सहते (sahate), _to bear, endure, tolerate_, सहस् (sáhas), _force, power, victory_).


1/ Possession: *«έχω το βιβλίο»* [ˈexo to viˈvli.o] --> _I have the book_


2/ Perfective aspect: *«έχω χάσει το βιβλίο»* [ˈexo ˈxasi to viˈvli.o] --> _I have lost the book_


3/ Existence: *«δεν έχει ψωμί»* [ðen ˈexi psoˈmi] (impersonal construction) --> lit. _it hasn't (any) bread_, meaning _there isn't (any) bread_


----------



## Lula Fenomenoide

francisgranada said:


> 3. Existence - yes (but not in general and not in all the Slavic languages)
> Example from Polish:
> Nie *ma* chleba (literally: "not *has* bread") - the meaning is "there's no bread", "no hay pan", "non c'è pane", ...



Another "curiosity" about Polish *mieć*((to have))is that it's used to express a person's state, which has its correspondence in English and Spanish as *estar *or *to be*, which are essentially the same verb.

How are you?
¿Cómo estás?
Jak się masz? ---> my Polish teacher told me a literal translation of this sentence would be "how do you have yourself?". It sounds kind of weird that way.


----------



## ger4

apmoy70 said:


> 1/ Possession: *«έχω το βιβλίο»* [ˈexo to viˈvli.o] --> _I have the book_
> 2/ Perfective aspect: *«έχω χάσει το βιβλίο»* [ˈexo ˈxasi to viˈvli.o] --> _I have lost the book_
> 3/ Existence: *«δεν έχει ψωμί»* [ðen ˈexi psoˈmi] (impersonal construction) --> lit. _it hasn't (any) bread_, meaning _there isn't (any) bread_


German uses 'to have' in (1) and (2) and either 'to give' or 'to be' in (3):
(1) Possession: *Ich habe das Buch* (same construction as in English) --> _I have the book_ 
(2) Auxiliary verb: *Ich habe das Buch verloren* (same construction as in English) --> _I have lost the book_
(3) Existence: *Es gibt kein Brot* (lit.:_ it gives no bread_) / *Es ist kein Brot da* (lit.:_ it is no bread there_) --> _There isn't (any) bread _ 

Latvian: 'to be' in (1), (2) and (3):
(1) Possession: *Man ir grāmata* (literally: _to_me [dative] is book_) --> _I have the book_ 
(2) Auxiliary verb: *Esmu pazaudējis grāmatu* (lit.: _I___am__ lost of_book_ [genitive]) --> _I have lost the book_ 
(3) Existence: *Nav maizes* (lit.: _is_not of_bread_ [genitive]) --> _There isn't (any) bread_


----------



## berndf

The periphrastic perfect with _esse _and _habere _emerged in Late Latin. Analogously constructed forms in other European languages are subsequent developments and there is no indication that these forms have ever been invented independently. The logic behind these forms, _esse _for intransitive and _habere _for transitive verbs, is to link the past participles as functional adjectives to the sentence because the past participle carries the perfect aspect, not the auxiliary verbs. They are just vehicles to link the past participle to the predicate of the sentence: _Il est venu_ (_he has come_) means literally something like _he is a come one_ and _Il a un livre _(_he has a book_) means literally something like _he has a read book_.

Semitic languages lack the verb _have _completely. In Hebrew, _I have a book_ is expressed _Yesh li sefer = there is to me a book_. The preposition _l-_ (_to_) serves a similar purpose as the dative case in IE languages. This construct has a certain similarity to possessive datives in IE languages as in the book is mine = _liber mihi est_ in Latin or _Das Buch ist mir _in dialectal/colloquial German.

The face that IE language families use unrelated verb stems to express the notion of have (English _have_/German _haben _are not related to Latin _habere _but to Latin _capere _and Latin _habere _is related to English _give_/German _geben_) suggests that verbs with the semantics of _have_ are late-comers in IE languages.


----------



## gburtonio

It's also common to use 'have' to express obligation. In English there is 'have to', in Italian you can say 'Ho tante cose da fare' ('I have many things to do') – I suppose you could argue that this isn't obligation exactly, but there's certainly the idea of possessing actions that you will subsequently carry out. Similarly in Greek you can say ''Eχω να κάνω πολλά πράγματα' (literally 'I have to do many things', but I think closer in meaning to 'I have many things to do.')

I think there are many other languages that use 'have' in this way, too.


----------



## berndf

_Have _(or semantic equivalent) + infinitive expressing an obligation or necessity is quite wide spread. In VL/Romance this developed into a periphrastic future tense: _amare habeo_ (_I have to love_) > Italian _amare o_ > _amerò_.


----------



## Treaty

In modern Persian (Iranian and Dari)  داشتن _dāštan _(pres. دار _dār_) is used both for "to possess" (including having time, a disease, etc.) and making progressive verbs. For example:
_man xāne dāram_ = I have (a) home.
_man dāram mi-nevisam_ = I am writing.

The Tajik Persian instead use _istādan_ (to stand) for making progressive verbs.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> _Have _(or semantic equivalent) + infinitive expressing an obligation or necessity is quite wide spread.


Also in some Slavic languages, e.g. Slovak: *mám *písať - *I have* to write.


> In VL/Romance this developed into a periphrastic future tense: _amare habeo_ (_I have to love_) > Italian _amare o_ > _amerò_.


Also used in the sense of obligation or necesseity, e.g. in Spanish _he de amar _(_I have to love_).


----------



## Nino83

gburtonio said:


> It's also common to use 'have' to express obligation. In English there is 'have to', in Italian you can say 'Ho tante cose *da* fare' ('I have many things to do')
> 
> I think there are many other languages that use 'have' in this way, too.



In Sicilian we say "*havi a* fari tanti cosi" = "*he has to* do many things". 

In Italian it is like in English: we use the verb "essere" (to be) to express existence: "c'è/ci sono" = "there is/there are". 
In Sicilian we use "èssiri" (to be) in "c'è/ci sunnu" = "there is/are" (like in English) but "avìri" in "n'avi/non n'avi chiù" = there is(/are) some/there is none left (like in French il n'y a plus de").


----------



## Lula Fenomenoide

francisgranada said:


> Also used in the sense of obligation or necesseity, e.g. in Spanish _he de amar _(_I have to love_).



_He de amar_: that "he" comes from the verb _haber_. This is not common in colloquial or informal talk here in Argentina, if anything, it's rather used poetically.

"*Haber*" also expreresses probability: _ha de ser fácil_ ((it must be easy))

*Haber/deber/**tener*: ha de ser fácil is equivalent to debe de ser fácil. *Deber=* _must_, so a more accurate translation for "it must be easy" would be, again, "debe de ser fácil".

*Deber *also expresses obligation or necessity, like that first use of *haber*, and the also possessive *tener*. The common phrase is *"tener que"*, just like "_having to_" do sth.

I have to go to the bathroom:
_*He *de ir al baño
*Debo *ir al baño
*Tengo que* ir al baño_ <--- all three mean the same thing, only the last verb can also be used to show possession, like in "_tengo un perro_" ((I have a dog))


----------



## bearded

In standard Italian, the verb 'avere' (to have) can
- indicate possession: _ho una casa _(I have a house), _ho una sorella _(I have a sister)
- be used as an auxiliary verb: _ho bevuto l'acqua _(I have drunk the water)
- be colloquially used for obligation, as others explained above.
You will notice that with 'avere' the initial H can only be found in certain persons (ho, hai, ha: to avoid confusion with conjunctions or prepositions).
It might be interesting for the OP, who is a Spanish speaker, to know that in Southern Italy the verb 'tenere' is usually employed to indicate possession instead of 'avere' (_Tengo due case = _I have/posses  two houses), and according to grammarians this is due to Spanish influence because of long Spanish domination during past centuries on those territories.


----------



## Nino83

bearded man said:


> It might be interesting for the OP, who is a Spanish speaker, to know that in Southern Italy the verb 'tenere' is usually employed to indicate possession instead of 'avere' (_Tengo due case = _I have/posses  two houses), and according to grammarians this is due to Spanish influence because of long Spanish domination during past centuries on those territories.



More precisely, the verb "tenere" means possession only in Neapolitan languages (from Gaeta to Cosenza and from Ascoli to Taranto), while in Sicilian languages we use "aviri", e.g "iddu havi du soru" (he has two sisters).


----------



## bearded

You are right, Nino, I should have added in _peninsular _Southern Italy.  I am not so sure about the situation in Sardinia, as concerns avere/tenere.
I also would like to add that normally - in standard Italian - _tenere _means 'to keep'.


----------



## Nino83

But Central and Southern Calabria and Salento are peninsular Sicilian


----------



## francisgranada

In Sardinian, at least in Logudorese, _tènnere _means also "to have", e.g. _tenet tres annos _ (Sp. _tiene tres años_, lit. "he/she has three years"). But as far as I know, also _hàere_ (< Lat. _habere_) is used in the sense of "to possess". 

_Hàere a _+ verb is used to express the future, e.g. _apo a faeddhare_ (_I shall speak_, lit. "I have to speak")


----------



## Ben Jamin

francisgranada said:


> Slavic:
> 
> 3. Existence - yes (but not in general and not in all the Slavic languages)
> Example from Polish:
> Nie *ma* chleba (literally: "not *has* bread") - the meaning is "there's no bread", "no hay pan", "non c'è pane", ...


It is important to notice that the word "has" is used only in negation. In affirmative statements the verb to be is used "Jest chleb" (Bread is here).
This Polish construction is probably a calque of German "es gibt".

I have heard that in Slovenian a corresponding construction is used in the affirmative "ima" (has)= "there is", but I'm not sure if this is correct.


----------



## Feainn

Venetian uses the verb "to have" (gaver) to express possession, obligation (gaver da - but, unlike Italian, that's the only way to express duty), suggestion (when you conjugate "gaver da" in conditional) and it's used as an auxiliary verb as well. (I'll give the following examples in the coastal-insular variant)

1. Ła ga do òci ble - She has two blue eyes
2. Gavé da torme un fià de articiochi - You have to buy me a few artichokes
3. No łi gavarìa da vèrzar i veri co łi xe in treno - They shouldn't open the windows when they're in a train
4. Ghe gavévimo mołà na s-ciafa su ła faça - We had slapped him in the face

~Feainn​


----------



## Feainn

Ben Jamin said:


> It is important to notice that the word "has" is used only in negation. In affirmative statements the verb to be is used "Jest chleb" (Bread is here).
> This Polish construction is probably a calque of German "es gibt".



Russian use есть (esť) as well. 

На столе есть стакан - Na stole esť stakan - there is a glass on the table

but in the negative нет (net) + genitive is used 

На столе нет стакана - Na stole net stakana - There is no glass on the table



> I have heard that in Slovenian a corresponding construction is used in the affirmative "ima" (has)= "there is", but I'm not sure if this is correct.



I don't know about Slovenian, but Croatian does use "ima" + genitive "Ima kruha" "There's some bread" and it's negative counterpart "nema" + genitive case "Nema kruha" "There is no bread"


----------



## OBrasilo

In Slovenian, we don't use "have" for existence at all. "There is bread" = "kruh je", "there is no bread" = "ni kruha" ("Ni" is derived from to be, not to have). This is also used in Russian, where "there is bread" is "хлеб есть", and "there is no bread" is "хлеба нет". On the other hand, Ukrainian from what I know used to have in both - "there is bread" is "має хліб" and "there is no bread" is "немає хліба".
Also, in Russian, to have isn't used for possession, instead, to be is used, "I have a book" = "у меня [есть] книга", literally "at me [is] a book" (the present tense of the verb to be is generally omitted in Russian).

It's interesting that Japanese is close to Russian in this regard (while being completely unrelated) - except even more extreme as it lacks a verb for "to have" completely, and instead there is only to be, arimasu for inanimate and imasu for animate.
For example:
I have a boyfriend - [私に、]彼氏がいます。 _[Watashi ni,] kareshi ga imasu_. literally _[At me,] is boyfriend_.
I have a book - [私に、]本があります。 _[Watashi ni,] hon ga arimasu_. literally _[At me,] is book_.
There is a boyfriend - 彼氏がいます。 _Kareshi ga imasu_. literally _Is boyfriend_.
There is a book - 本があります。 _Hon ga arimasu_. literally _Is book_.

Note, this existential to be (imasu / arimasu, iru / aru in casual speech) is different from the copula which is desu in formal language and da in casual speech.
Also, from what I know, Korean works pretty much the same way too.

Latin also had a form of to be for possession - _I have a book_ could be _Mihi est librum_. (At me is book.) This kind of construction is also used in Irish.

In addition, from what I know, Uralic languages also use such a construction for possession, though some like Finnish have also developed a verb for to have.

As for using this verb as an "obligated future", it does happen in Slovenian, but we have to insert "za" too - I have to write 20 sentences [by tomorrow]. would be _[Do jutri] imam za napisat 20 povedi__._
I've however never seen such a construct in any other South or East Slavic language, however I've found it in Romance language - Portuguese has _ter de_, Spanish has _tener que_, and Italian has _avere da_. And, of course, _to have to_ in English.

Also, I noticed someone mentioned Hebrew - Arabic does the same, that is, uses _to be_ to express possession.


----------



## Ben Jamin

OBrasilo said:


> In addition, from what I know, Uralic languages also use such a construction for possession, though some like *Finnish* have also developed a *verb for to have*.


What Finnish word do you have in mind?


----------



## OBrasilo

Seems I was wrong actually and Finnish still uses the to be construction for possession, and the same goes Estonian and Hungarian. I guess I mixed up something in my mind then.


----------



## Ben Jamin

OBrasilo said:


> Seems I was wrong actually and Finnish still uses the to be construction for possession, and the same goes Estonian and Hungarian. I guess I mixed up something in my mind then.


Finnish has "omistaa", which means "to own", but this is not a word that is used in the colloquial language in the meaning "to have".


----------



## Ben Jamin

OBrasilo said:


> In Slovenian, we don't use "have" for existence at all. "There is bread" = "kruh je", "there is no bread" = "ni kruha" ("Ni" is derived from to be, not to have).



Feainn has confirmed that this is Croatian, not Slovenian. 
Sorry, I had information from somebody that travelled in Yugoslavia in the 1960-s, and he confused the langauges.


----------



## sotos

Peripes said:


> in Mandarin (and probably Cantonese and other Chinese languages) the verb analog with _have_ shares these uses. E.g.:
> 
> 我没*有*去。 I didn't go./I haven't gone.
> 她*有*一只猫。She has one cat.
> 桌子上*有*一本书。There is a book on the table.



At least in japanese, this letter has dual meaning: to have and to exist. It seems that this is a universal phenomenon, as in ancient, old and new Greek the v. "έχω" (to have)  sometimes means existence. e.g. "καλώς έχει" (it *is* good, Xenophon). 
I suppose there are anthropological or psychological explanations why "to have" means "to be" and vice versa.


----------



## OBrasilo

Yes, but the only verb in Japanese that uses that character is 有する _yuu suru_ which means to own, to be endowed with. The only time it's used for existence or simple possession is as a noun meaning existence or possession, read _yuu_.


----------



## Feainn

Ben Jamin said:


> Feainn has confirmed that this is Croatian, not Slovenian.
> Sorry, I had information from somebody that travelled in Yugoslavia in the 1960-s, and he confused the langauges.



Yep, the same goes for Bosnian and Serbian of course


----------



## Peripes

OBrasilo said:


> In Slovenian, we don't use "have" for existence at all. "There is bread" = "kruh je", "there is no bread" = "ni kruha" ("Ni" is derived from to be, not to have). This is also used in Russian, where "there is bread" is "хлеб есть", and "there is no bread" is "хлеба нет". On the other hand, Ukrainian from what I know used to have in both - "there is bread" is "має хліб" and "there is no bread" is "немає хліба".
> Also, in Russian, to have isn't used for possession, instead, to be is used, "I have a book" = "у меня [есть] книга", literally "at me [is] a book" (the present tense of the verb to be is generally omitted in Russian).



Similarly, one way to express posession in French is to use the verb to be (_être_):
_
Ce livre est à moi. _(literally, this book is to/at me)_
À qui appartiennent ces crayons? Ils sont à lui._ (literally, whose pencils are these? They're to/at him)

In Spanish we just use pronouns without prepositions (_es mío, tuyo, suyo_).


----------



## rhitagawr

1 In Welsh (the other Celtic languages are similar, I dare say) the perfect tense is formed with the preposition _wedi_ = _after_. _Dw i wedi gorffen_ – I am after finishing - I have finished. _Gorffen_ is a verb-noun – a cross between a gerund, an infinitive, and a present participle. So:
_Dw i’n gorffen_ – I am in finishing – I finish/am finishing.
_Ro’n i’n gorffen_ – I was in finishing – I was finishing.
_Ro’n i wedi gorffen_ – I was after finishing – I had finished.
_Bydda i’n gorffen_ – I will be in finishing – I will finish.
_Baswn i’n gorffen_ – I would be in finishing – I would finish.
_Bydda i wedi gorffen_ – I will be after finishing – I will have finished.
_Baswn i wedi gorffen_ – I would be after finishing - I would have finished.
There are no past participles as such. There are _–edig_ words such as _ysgrifenedig_ = _written_. These are used adjectivally and not to form tenses. There are also simple tenses with personal endings.

2 One way possession can be shown is with the preposition _gyda_ = _with. Mae gyda fi cath_ – (There) is with me a cat – I have a cat. This is similar to Finnish and Russian.

3_ Mae cath_ on its own, to denote existence, doesn’t sound right to me as a non-native speaker. I’d say _Cath sydd_, although this would stress the word _cath _- a cat as opposed to anything else.  _Oes_ _cath?_ – Is there a cat? _Oes_ – yes, there is. _Nac oes_ – no, there isn’t. _Does dim cath(od)_ – there is/are no cat(s). _Faint o gathod sydd?_ – How many cats are there? _Deg cath sydd_ – there are ten cats. _Mae, oes, does_, and _sydd_ are parts of the verb-noun _bod_ = _to be / being_.

4_ Have_ in the sense of _receive_ can be expressed with the verb-noun _cael. Dw i wedi cael anrheg _ – I have got/received a present.


----------



## Ben Jamin

rhitagawr said:


> There are no past participles as such. There are _–edig_ words such as _ysgrifenedig_ = _written_. These are used adjectivally and not to form tenses.


 Do you mean that forming compound tenses is a necessary property of a past participle, in any language?


----------



## rhitagawr

I suppose it varies from language to language. In English, French and German, you have a past participle_. I’ve seen him, je l’ai vu, ich habe ihn gesehen_. Past participles (or at least many of them) in these languages can also act as adjectives.
In Swedish (and the other Scandinavian languages as well, presumably) you have a supine (someone may wish to correct me on my terminology) to form a tense: _Jag har sett honom_.  Past participles act as adjectives: _Jag har öppnat flaskan_ – I’ve opened the bottle. _En öppnad flaska_ – an opened bottle.
So past participles don’t necessarily form compound tenses. The _–edig_ ending in Welsh is an adjectival rather than a verb ending. You can’t suffix it to every verb. You can probably only suffix it to a minority of them.


----------



## Ben Jamin

From Wikipedia:

"A *participle* is a form of a verb that is used in a sentence to modify a noun, noun phrase, verb or verb phrase, and thus plays a role similar to that of an adjective or adverb[1] (some languages have distinct forms for adverbial participles and adjectival participles). It is one of the types of nonfinite verb forms."

So, even the English definition does not use the function of forming compound tenses as an essential feature of a participle.

Only Swedish among Scandinavian uses the name _supinum _for the verbal form used in compound tenses. Norwegian and Danish use the name participle (participium/partisipp). The Swedish supinum, however, is not the same as the Latin supinum.


----------



## rhitagawr

Thanks for the clarification, Ben.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Lula Fenomenoide said:


> Another "curiosity" about Polish *mieć*((to have))is that it's used to express a person's state, which has its correspondence in English and Spanish as *estar *or *to be*, which are essentially the same verb.
> 
> How are you?
> ¿Cómo estás?
> Jak się masz? ---> my Polish teacher told me a literal translation of this sentence would be "how do you have yourself?". It sounds kind of weird that way.




Interestingly the Latin verb  _habere  _(to have) can be used in the same way, that is with a reflexive pronoun to convey the same meaning _: Res sic se habent _, word for word _"Things have themselves so "_ , _that's  the way it is._ The first meaning of _habere_ being _to hold _, _se habere _can be translated to _hold oneself _or to _keep oneself_ . In French we don't say " "how do you hold yourself?", but _Il se tient droit _( Word for word :_ "He holds himself straight" , he stands up straight _) or _Il se tient tranquille _( "He behaves quiet , he is quiet ). Moreover Latin uses _habere _on its own with the meaning of to be in a sentence like _Bene habet _, _It's right_, _it's O.K_.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

francisgranada said:


> Slavic:
> 
> 
> 3. Existence - yes (but not in general and not in all the Slavic languages)
> Example from Polish:
> Nie *ma* chleba (literally: "not *has* bread") - the meaning is "there's no bread", "no hay pan", "non c'è pane", ...



 The same usage can be found in Old French ( 11th century ) : _En icest siecle nen *at *parfaite amor _( _In this world there is no perfect love _) where _at _< Latin _habet_ (it has) ; in Modern French the  adverb of space has to be added to maintain this meaning :  _Il y a_  is equivalent to _hay _or _c'è._


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

As I've mentioned it in #3 ,the French verb a_voir_ is also used to express physical sensations as _Il a froid _(_He is cold_) , _Il a mal _(_It hurts _) and any part of the body can be added after the verb  _Il a mal aux dents _( _he has a tooth-ache_ ) , _Il a mal au bras_ ( _His arm hurts_ ) and so on. 

Some feelings are also expressed this way: _J'ai peur de_ (_I am afraid)_ ; _J'ai envie de_ ( _I feel like _) ; _J'ai besoin de_ (_I need to _).


----------



## francisgranada

J.F. de TROYES said:


> Interestingly the Latin verb  _habere  _(to have) can be used in the same way, that is with a reflexive pronoun to convey the same meaning _: Res sic se habent _, word for word _"Things have themselves so "_ , _that's  the way it is ... _


 This is interesting, because this construction works not only in Latin, but e.g. also in Slovak, using the same reflexive pronoun ("sa" in Slovak), but at the same time the "Polish-like" construction "nie ma chleba" (there's no bread) does not work in Slovak.  

My _ad hoc_ impression is that the concept of _to be_ and _to have_ are _a priori_ not so far from each other as they seem to be at the first glance (independently on the etymology of the concrete verb for _habere_)_.  _


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

apmoy70 said:


> Most IE languages share the threefold function of the verb I guess, as does Greek:
> 
> 
> 3/ Existence: *«δεν έχει ψωμί»* [ðen ˈexi psoˈmi] (impersonal construction) --> lit. _it hasn't (any) bread_, meaning _there isn't (any) bread_



 In ancient Greek the verb *ἔχω *( I have ) used with  adverbs expresses the meaning of being in some mood for a person or in some way for things. So *καλῶϛ ἒχειϛ *or *εὖ ἒχειϛ *( word for word : _" You have well"_ means _you are well_ , *οὒτωϛ ἒχει, *_that the way it is_ , and *ἒχει μοι ἀναγκαίωϛ *( to have 3 sing.- me dative - necessarily ),  _it's necessary to me_, is equivalent to the verb *εἰμί *( I am) with the corresponding adjective .

I am wondering if there are still such phrases in modern Greek.


----------



## apmoy70

J.F. de TROYES said:


> In ancient Greek the verb *ἔχω *( I have ) used with  adverbs expresses the meaning of being in some mood for a person or in some way for things. So *καλῶϛ ἒχειϛ *or *εὖ ἒχειϛ *( word for word : _" You have well"_ means _you are well_ , *οὒτωϛ ἒχει, *_that the way it is_ , and *ἒχει μοι ἀναγκαίωϛ *( to have 3 sing.- me dative - necessarily ),  _it's necessary to me_, is equivalent to the verb *εἰμί *( I am) with the corresponding adjective .
> 
> I am wondering if there are still such phrases in modern Greek.


Well the one I have in mind, is the impersonal expression we use as the equivalent of the Eng. colloquialism "it's good", *«έχει καλώς»* [ˈeçi kaˈlos] (the ancient *«καλῶς ἔχει»* in reverse order).

Edit: I've just remembered that we also use the set phrase *«έτσι έχουν τα πράγματα»* [ˈet͡si ˈexun ta ˈpraɣmata] --> _thus things are_. The ancient expression would have been *«οὑτωσὶ τὰ πράγματα ἔχει»* (in Attic prose syntax).


----------



## arsham

Treaty said:


> In modern Persian (Iranian and Dari)  داشتن _dāštan _(pres. دار _dār_) is used both for "to possess" (including having time, a disease, etc.) and making progressive verbs. For example:
> _man xāne dāram_ = I have (a) home.
> _man dāram mi-nevisam_ = I am writing.
> 
> The Tajik Persian instead use _istādan_ (to stand) for making progressive verbs.



To complete your comments, the verb dāštan, dār- is attested as is in Middle Persian, where it has the additional meanings of "holding and considering". These two meanings are attested in Classical Persian and are found in set phrases in the contemporary use (as in gerāmi dāštan to consider as dear/treasured). The use of dāštan to form progressive tenses is attested in Middle Persian too (as in _raft dāšt _meaning he had been going). In Middle Persian, ēstādan was used to form the perfect tenses, which had a continuous meaning (for example, raft ēstēm meant I have gone/have been going). The verb dāštan ultimately derives from the Old Persian dār- root.


----------



## ahvalj

Peripes said:


> However, what struck me as odd (thinking it could be more than just a coincidence), is that in Mandarin (and probably Cantonese and other Chinese languages) the verb analog with _have_ shares these uses. E.g.:
> 
> 我没*有*去。 I didn't go./I haven't gone.
> 她*有*一只猫。She has one cat.
> 桌子上*有*一本书。There is a book on the table.
> 
> Now, I want to ask you if there is really an explanation for this, as it seems to me that this verb and the idea of its functions seem to be tied together. Or if it's just a coincidence that the verbs are really similar.


I agree with what has been said in the replies about the two standard patterns to express possession found across the world languages ("at/to me there is" and "I have/hold") and replicating themselves in the history again and again. The modern Russian shows a recently developed curious merger of both. In the early Slavic texts written at the boundary of the 1st and 2nd millennia, we find both these patterns, but with a strong tendency towards the "to be at/to" construction in the future Russian territory and "to have" elsewhere. During the most part of the 2nd millennium, spoken Russian probably didn't use the verb "to have" altogether, though the passive acquaintance existed as this was the preferred construction in the Slavic Bible translation. In the 18th and 19th century, contacts with French and German brought many calques and strongly increased the frequency of "to have", so that both constructions became possible again. However, "to have" remained alien to the everyday language and so a compromise was born: "at me there is" × "I have" = "at me it has itself" (_у меня есть_ × _я имею_ = _у меня имеется_). The latter verb is hard to express in English since it lacks reflexive verbs, but in German it will look as _es hat sich bei mir_ and in French _il y s'a chez moi_. This construction is more elevated than the everyday "at me there is" but not as artificial and alien as "I have" and can be freely used in the scientific literature etc.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> The periphrastic perfect with _esse _and _habere _emerged in Late Latin. Analogously constructed forms in other European languages are subsequent developments and there is no indication that these forms have ever been invented independently. The logic behind these forms, _esse _for intransitive and _habere _for transitive verbs, is to link the past participles as functional adjectives to the sentence because the past participle carries the perfect aspect, not the auxiliary verbs. They are just vehicles to link the past participle to the predicate of the sentence: _Il est venu_ (_he has come_) means literally something like _he is a come one_ and _Il a un livre _(_he has a book_) means literally something like _he has a read book_.
> 
> The face that IE language families use unrelated verb stems to express the notion of have (English _have_/German _haben _are not related to Latin _habere _but to Latin _capere _and Latin _habere _is related to English _give_/German _geben_) suggests that verbs with the semantics of _have_ are late-comers in IE languages.


The earliest IE example of "to have" used in the analytical Perfect is found in Hittite, which has both "to have" and "to be" employed in the Resultative Perfect and Pluperfect: _Hoffner HA, Jr., Melchert HC · 2008 · A grammar of the Hittite language. Part 1: reference grammar:_ 310–312 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJSHhHU0hlaWdSb0k&authuser=0)

Update. Of course, the Hittite construction is not inherited, but I just wanted to remind that such constructions are natural and they are easy to develop, so that we even find it in the earliest attested IE language.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> they are easy to develop


Of course, the semantics of the construct isn't so outlandish that it can't have developed independently more than once. But the idea that it is a universal feature of IE, let alone a semantic intrinsic to the verb _have_, is a misconception. The ubiquity of the construction in modern western European language is due to inheritance/borrowing from a single common source.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

ahvalj said:


> However, "to have" remained alien to the everyday language and so a compromise was born: "at me there is" × "I have" = "at me it has itself" (_у меня есть_ × _я имею_ = _у меня имеется_). The latter verb is hard to express in English since it lacks reflexive verbs, but in German it will look as _es hat sich bei mir_ and in French _il y s'a chez moi_. This construction is more elevated than the everyday "at me there is" but not as artificial and alien as "I have" and can be freely used in the scientific literature etc.



This recently developped phrase is very interesting indeed. I suppose _имеется _is impersonal form as _il y a  _that can be used in other tenses ,_ il y avait_ (imperfect past ) , _il y aura_ (future ) , but neither the reflexive nor the phrase _chez moi_ can be added. _Il y a chez moi ...would _mean there is at home.., but is generally replaced by _j'ai chez moi_ ...( _I have at home...)._

A slighty different pattern using the verb _to be _is found in Indo-Iranian languages to express possession with possessive adjectives  ( = oblique personal pronouns ): _mera: ek bha:i: hɛ_ , "of me one brother is" , I_ have one brother_.


----------



## ahvalj

J.F. de TROYES said:


> This recently developped phrase is very interesting indeed. I suppose _имеется _is impersonal form as _il y a  _that can be used in other tenses ,_ il y avait_ (imperfect past ) , _il y aura_ (future ) , but neither the reflexive nor the phrase _chez moi_ can be added. _Il y a chez moi ...would _mean there is at home.., but is generally replaced by _j'ai chez moi_ ...( _I have at home...)_.


Here, as in the vast majority of other Slavic verbs, the reflexive particle serves as an intransitivizer, signaling that the action remains within the subject (Slavic strictly distinguishes between transitives and intransitives). Grammatically, _имеется_ is personal, it agrees in number with the grammatical subject (=the logical object of possession) and even agrees in gender in the Past tense (_у него имелась дочь_ "he had a daughter"). In some ways, this construction can be regarded as a parallel to the replacements of "to be", e. g. _находиться_ (I guess, a calque of _se trouver_) for expressing the place and _являться_ (probably native) for expressing the predication: _иметься_ completes this trio by expressing the existence (_здесь имеются два варианта_ "two variants exist here").


----------



## Gavril

J.F. de TROYES said:


> A slighty different pattern using the verb _to be _is found in Indo-Iranian languages to express possession with possessive adjectives  ( = oblique personal pronouns ): _mera: ek bha:i: hɛ_ , "of me one brother is" , I_ have one brother_.



Which Indo-Iranian language is this example from?


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

I am sorry to be late in answering your question I am reading right now. The example comes from Hindi. 

The 1st. and 2nd. possessive adjectives/ pronouns  come from the old genitive suffix_ -ra _added to the personal pronouns  mɛƞ (I)  gives  _merā_ (my),_ tū _  (you , sing ) gives _terā_ (your, sing.); ham (we) _hamārā _(our) ; tum ( you,pl. ) _tumārā _(your, pl.).  

 So   the 1st. and 2nd. possessive adjectives  are originally genitive personal pronouns , but are no longer perceived as genitives , since this case has disappeared in Hindi the declension of which is reduced to direct and oblique cases for nouns and qualifying  adjectives.


----------

