# The etymology of to eat and to be in Russian



## LilianaB

What is the etymology of to be and to eat in Russian. They are exactly the same in some conjugation forms. The third person singular of to be is exactly the same as the infinitive to eat.  Should we assume that to be meant once to eat. 
There is still another alternative that they are not related at all.


----------



## Maroseika

They are not related at all (look есть, ем).

And military Есть! is unrelated to both (< yes).


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you, Maroseika. I know the military yest, comes from misheard English yes, from whatever I know. What does to eat come from?


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> Thank you, Maroseika. I know the military yest, comes from misheard English yes, from whatever I know. What does to eat come from?



Have you checked my link? vasmer.narod.ru


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, but it is the whole dictionary, not a particular link to a word. I will do it later because I have to enter words there in the cyrillic.


----------



## Sempra

It is not /to eat/.This word "есть" have two different meanings in Russian that are sounded and written the same. 1)to eat(potato) Есть картошку."2) There is (black rose in the garden).В саду есть чёрная роза.It is a  form of verb "to  be".


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, the form to be would be most likely related to the latin word est - third person singular. I am really interested in the etymology of the latter.


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> Yes, but it is the whole dictionary, not a particular link to a word. I will do it later because I have to enter words there in the cyrillic.



No, you don't have to enter anything in Cyrillic there, just choose the page and the word by use of your mouse.


----------



## LilianaB

No, I'm sorry Maroseika, but I have absolutely no idea which page to go to. I tried the letter e, but something totally different appeared on the screen. I am really not sure on which page the word is located.


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> No, I'm sorry Maroseika, but I have absolutely no idea which page to go to. I tried the letter e, but something totally different appeared on the screen. I am really not sure on which page the word is located.



You go to page E and then leaf it over clicking 1-20, 50 or 100 pages forward or backward, until getting into the page you need.


----------



## morzh

About "есть" as "eat" I remember something about closeness to Sanskrit "asti", which is, incidentally, also part of the word "swastika", from "su asti" - "to eat well".


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you, Morzh. I think that makes sense. I think it is also a cognate of to eat and essen - German.


----------



## morzh

Yes, "eat" words are cognates in German, Russian, Sanskrit, and I am pretty sure in Lithuanian also (this being, according to people I knew who learned Sanskrit, very close to it).

Also Latin words (I don;t know Latin, but know quite a few words, and so, for example, "king bolete", "бельiй гриб", which is "Boletus Edulis", "Bolete edible") - "edulis", English "edible".


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, there is esti in Lithuanian, but it is more to consume. There is jesc in Polish.


----------



## berndf

*Moved to EHL.*


----------



## CapnPrep

LilianaB said:


> No, I'm sorry Maroseika, but I have absolutely no idea which page to go to. I tried the letter e, but something totally different appeared on the screen. I am really not sure on which page the word is located.


If you don't know how to use this dictionary, you can try something simpler (like Wiktionary), or you can just take Maroseika's word for it: The two verbs are not related, not even in the 3rd person singular. Here are the two IE roots: _*es-_ and *_ed-_. 


morzh said:


> About "есть" as "eat" I remember something about closeness to Sanskrit "asti", which is, incidentally, also part of the word "swastika", from "su asti" - "to eat well".


No. _Swastika_ is from _svasti_ "well-being". It contains "be", not "eat".


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you CapnPrep. I believe Maroseika. Now when I think about the Lithuanian verb and the Polish one which have different forms than to be whatsoever, but still sound similar, I know they are totally unrelated. I did not think about them somehow, and the Russian words are exactly the same.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Notice that:
in German "he eats" is "_isst" _and "he is" is _"ist". _Pronounciation of both words is identical.
In Polish dialetcts "he is" is _"je", _and _"je"_ means also "he eats" in both standard Polish and dialects.
Maybe the same similarity can be found in other IE languages and dialects.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> in German "he eats" is "_isst" _and "he is" is _"ist"._


The German homophones are certainly purely accidental. We know this for sure because the development chains leading to these homophones are understood quite well:
The [s] in "isst" is derived through the chain [t]>[ts]>[s:]>[s]
and the [s] in "ist" from [ʂ]>[s].


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> The German homophones are certainly purely accidental. We know this for sure because the development chains leading to these homophones are understood quite well:
> The [s] in "isst" is derived through the chain [t]>[ts]>[s:]>[s]
> and the [s] in "ist" from [ʂ=]=>[s].



I am aware that the homophony of the words meaning “to eat” and “to be” in Russian, Polish and German is purely accidental, but I found it, notwithstanding, amusing to investigate


----------



## bibax

The Latin verb edere (to eat) has some forms identical with the verb esse (to be) as well, e.g. est = he is, he eats, es! = be!, eat!, etc. (however there is a difference in the vowel quantity).


----------



## LilianaB

In German and many other Germanic languages too, but I do not know if this is a coincidence


----------



## Ben Jamin

Read the last posts on the previous page, this question is dicussed there.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

LilianaB said:


> In German and many other Germanic languages too, but I do not know if this is a coincidence


Sorry, you are wrong. There are NO identical forms, although one (3rd person Singular Present tense) is quite similar.


----------



## LilianaB

There are no identical forms in Germanic languages but there are forms similar to such a degree that they could be cognates.


----------



## berndf

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Sorry, you are wrong. There are NO identical forms, although one (3rd person Singular Present tense) is quite similar.


They are disambiguated in spelling but that is an arbitrary convention. In standard German, "ist" and "isst" are 100% homophone.


----------



## itreius

Ben Jamin said:


> In Polish dialetcts "he is" is _"je", _and _"je"_ means also "he eats" in both standard Polish and dialects.
> Maybe the same similarity can be found in other IE languages and dialects.



In written Kajkavian Croatian both the 3rd person singular of _he eats_ and of _he is_ are _je_, but the vowels are different. The first one is /e/, the latter one /æ/.


----------



## OBrasilo

Slovenian: _je_ means both _he eats_ and _he is_.
Latin: _est_ means _he eats_ if the _e_ is long (though there's an alternate _edit_ too), and _he is_ if it's short.


----------



## POLSKAdoBOJU

Liliana, one Russian _есть_(= to eat) is related to Polish _jeść_, which evolved from Old Church Slavonic _ꙗсти (yasti__)_ and Proto-Slavic _*jěsti.
_The second Russian _есть__ (= he/she is__)_ is related to Polish _jest_, which evolved from Old Church Slavonic _єстъ (estŭ__) _and Proto-Slavic _*jestъ.

_They are not cognates of the same root word and do not have a common etymological origin.


----------



## LilianaB

Lithuanian esti means to eat,  although it is not the first word that would be used for eating. It is more similar to the Old Church Slavonic estu than to jasti, I think, so we would really have to go to the PIE to know what their origin is.


----------



## Igrok

CapnPrep said:


> If you don't know how to use this dictionary, you can try something simpler (like Wiktionary), or you can just take Maroseika's word for it: The two verbs are not related, not even in the 3rd person singular. Here are the two IE roots: _*es-_ and *_ed-_.



This is the correct answer. The verb _есть_ "to eat" comes from the root *_h1ed_-, and that root is still visible in some forms, for example _едим, едите, едят; еда_.

Proto-Slavic _*edti _> _*jesti _> Rus. _есть_, SC. _jesti_; *_jedm, *jedši, *jedt_ > _ем, ешь, ест_; *_jedl _> _ел_.

The form _есть_ of the verb _быть_, on the other hand, comes from the root *_h1es_-.


----------



## Gale_

*Liliana*, it's an old thread but it's very interesting, and do you know what has come to my head?
They say that these two roots a different and that one has no relation to another, but it has reminded me of another Russian word "_живот_". In Old Russian this word has two meanings: _жизнь (life)_ and _живот_ proper _(belly)_. Now "_живот_" is used mostly in the second meaning as a part of the body, but still we say _"не щадя *живота* своего"_, and it means _"не щадя своей *жизни*"_. 
So I hint at that these two different things, material and ideal, were very close to each other in some sacral meaning, and maybe *to be* and *to eat* were close too, that's why they sound very alike, could it be so? Apart of grammar eating is very important for survival and so for existence as well.


----------



## fdb

morzh said:


> About "есть" as "eat" I remember something about closeness to Sanskrit "asti", which is, incidentally, also part of the word "swastika", from "su asti" - "to eat well".



Since this oldish thread has been revived, we might as well set this right: Skt. _svastika-_ means “good existence”, not “to eat well”.

The fact that many IE languages use identical or similar words for “is”  and “eats” is striking, but it has a simple explanation. For IE we can  reconstruct *ed- “to eat” and *es- “to be” (feel free to throw in a  couple of laryngeals if you really want to). In many languages both  verbs are conjugated athematically (that means: the personal endings are  attached directly to the root without any intervening vowel). Also:  many IE languages have a rule that changes –dt- to –st-. So, the outcome  of *ed-ti > *esti “eats” will often resemble that of *es-ti “is”.


----------



## swintok

In Ukrainian there are no homophonic connections between the verbs "to be" and "to eat."  The only similarity is that the archaic conjugation of the verb "to be" is of the same rare conjugation type as the verb "to eat."

To be: бути (infinitive); є (modern Ukrainian, present imperfect, undeclined in all persons); єсм, єси, єсть, ємо (єсмо), єсте, суть (archaic conjugated form, present imperfect)
To eat: їсти (infinitive); їм, їси, їсть, їмо, їсте, їдять (present imperfect)


----------



## apmoy70

Classical Greek too, shared this resemblance between the two verbs «εἰμὶ» (to be) and «ἔσθω» (to eat):

«Ἐστὶ» ĕstì --> _s/he/it is_
«Ἔσθει» éstʰei --> _s/he/it eats_
(third person singular, present tense, indicative)

 They're not completely identical of course, but if one looks at the latter verb's archaic & athematic form «ἔδμι» édmĭ, the homophonic similarities between the two are striking: «εἰμὶ» (first person sing., present tense, indicative of v. _to be_) vs. «ἔδμι» (first person sing., present tense, indicative of v. _to eat_).
The two verbs are unrelated of course.


----------



## francisgranada

fdb said:


> ... Also:  many IE languages have a rule that changes –dt- to –st-. So, the outcome  of *ed-ti > *esti “eats” will often resemble that of *es-ti “is”.


An other verb, for illustration: ве*ст*и < *ве*дт*и. The conjugated forms in present indicative maintain the original "d": ве*д*у, ве*д*ёшь ... etc.


----------



## Gale_

francisgranada said:


> An other verb, for illustration: ве*ст*и < *ве*дт*и. The conjugated forms in present indicative maintain the original "d": ве*д*у, ве*д*ёшь ... etc.


... or _блю*ст*и_ - _блю*д*у, блю*д*ёшь, блю*д*ёт_ - i.e. _соблю*д*ать_
However _"вест*и"*_ (apart of stress) resembles _"в*е*сти"_ (news), but _блюсти_ resembles nothing (((

So we may create a new thread about the resemblance of the verbs _*вед*ёт_ (_lead_) и _*вед*ает_ (_know_).


----------

