# he - imperative form of 'haber' for second person?



## obz

Silly question to throw in the mix...looking at the conjugation table you linked, when would you ever use the imperative of haber in the second person singular informal (tú/vos he)?


----------



## Outsider

I don't think it's actually used in modern Spanish. Maybe in the olden days...


----------



## obz

I didn't think so either. I know in the bible god says '¡Haya luz!' etc, but this is 3rd person singular, or uncountable... and furthermore some thousand years old . I can't imagine it being used as a command outside of a context like that.
Thanks!


----------



## Milton Sand

obz said:


> I didn't think so either. I know in the *B*ible god says '¡Haya luz!' etc, but this is 3rd person singular, or uncountable... and furthermore some thousand years old . I can't imagine it being used as a command outside of a context like that.
> Thanks!


That is not an imperative conjugation. Third persons don't have it. What you mentioned is the subjunctive mood used to express one's wish or will hoping that it will be carried out, like in, "_¡[Deseo que] haya luz!_", where verb "haber" brings its impersonal meaning, something like, "to be verified the existence of..." and/or "to take place the occurrence of...":

¡Haya luz! —> _I command that the existence of light begins._ = Let there be light!

Anyway, in Spanish, God said, "¡Hágase la luz! (_Let the light be done!_)". .

Imperative forms of "haber" can might be forcedly used with a lot of irony:
— No te puedo pagar el dinero hoy. No lo he reunido.
— Pues, "hábelo" reunido para esta tarde o no te gustará mi manera de cobrar.

Regards,


----------



## obz

Milton Sand said:


> Anyway, in Spanish, God said, "¡Hágase la luz! (_Let the light be done!_)". .



Not in the copy I found. I miss quoted it anyways, but here's what it says now that I have it out:
'Sea la luz...' easy enough... 
'Haya lumbreras en expansión..', imperative or subjunctive?
'Produzca la tierra...' again, easy.

I understand there is no 3rd person imperative, because,... they're a 3rd person, not being spoken to, so imerpsonal is what I meant .
(furthermore what he actually says is of little importance to me, but '_Haya_' here seems to fall in with _sea _and _produzca _in the imperative. God doesn't wish, he 'has done' what he wants  )



> Imperative forms of "haber" can might be forcedly used with a lot of irony:
> — No te puedo pagar el dinero hoy. No lo he reunido.
> — Pues, "hábelo" reunido para esta tarde o no te gustará mi manera de cobrar.


That's cool! Thanks, wasn't aware of those uses. Is 'habé' a voseo variant on 'tú he lo reunido'?


----------



## Pinairun

obz said:


> Silly question to throw in the mix...looking at the conjugation table you linked, when would you ever use the imperative of haber in the second person singular informal (tú/vos he)?


 
Es posible que la forma "he" no corresponda al verbo _haber,_ pero se usa en varias expresiones.

La FUNDÉU responde así a una consulta sobre "he":

Según indica el Diccionario académico, _he_ es un adverbio que, 'unido a _aquí, ahí_ y _allí_, o con los pronombres _me, te, la, le, lo, las, los_, se usa para señalar o mostrar a alguien o algo'. 
Otros autores opinan que se trata de la segunda persona del singular del imperativo del verbo _haber_, con valor impersonal y un significado próximo a _ver_.
_Hete aquí_, en cualquier caso, viene a significar 'aquí tienes', 've ahí'; se trata de una fórmula principalmente literaria para llamar la atención sobre algo.

Sin embargo, en el _Diccionario de Dudas,_ de Manuel Seco, se encuentra otra explicación:

*he. ​*​La palabra _he _(en _he aquí, he ahí) _no es, como suelen decir las gramáticas y los diccionarios, ni imperativo del verbo _haber _ni adverbio demostrativo.
 Es un verbo defectivo e impersonal. Expresa la mera existencia de algo en un lugar, como el impersonal _hay; _pero se diferencia de este en que presenta siempre esa existencia «ante los ojos» del oyente. Es invariable: no tiene otra forma personal, temporal ni modal que esta.
 Lleva siempre dos acompañantes forzosos: 
1.°, el adverbio _aquí _o _allí _(en ocasiones  otro complemento adverbial de lugar: _Henos ya _EN CASA); 
2.°, un complemento directo: _He aquí el resultado; He aquí a tu madre; Heme aquí. _
Es palabra de uso principalmente literario.
 
Saludos​


----------



## obz

Pinairun said:


> Es posible que la forma "he" no corresponda al verbo _haber,_ pero se usa en varias expresiones.



Claro, he leído esas explicaciones también, pero ahora, con el enlace de conjugar del RAE presentado anteriormente en ese hilo, se encuentra 'he' como el imperativo de 'tú y vos'. Y eso es lo que me preguntaba.
Cuándo y cómo lo utilizaríais... un ejemplo de haber en el imperativo.

Pero gracias de todos modos .


----------



## Pinairun

obz said:


> Not in the copy I found. I miss quoted it anyways, but here's what it says now that I have it out:
> 'Sea la luz...' easy enough...
> 'Haya lumbreras en expansión..', imperative or subjunctive?
> 'Produzca la tierra...' again, easy.
> 
> I understand there is no 3rd person imperative, because,... they're a 3rd person, not being spoken to, so imerpsonal is what I meant .
> (furthermore what he actually says is of little importance to me, but '_Haya_' here seems to fall in with _sea _and _produzca _in the imperative. God doesn't wish, he 'has done' what he wants  )
> 
> That's cool! Thanks, wasn't aware of those uses. Is 'habé' a voseo variant on 'tú he lo reunido'?


 
_Sea la luz, Produzca la tierra_, son supuestas oraciones independientes con subjuntivo exhortativo, que no imperativo.
 Pero dependen de verbos introductores principales:
Quiero que, ordeno que...

Saludos


----------



## Pinairun

obz said:


> Cuándo y cómo lo utilizaríais... un ejemplo de haber en el imperativo.


 


Difícil lo pones...


----------



## obz

Pinairun said:


> _Sea la luz, Produzca la tierra_, son supuestas oraciones independientes con subjuntivo exhortativo, que no imperativo.
> Pero dependen de verbos introductores principales:
> Quiero que, ordeno que...
> 
> Saludos



¿Y si no hay ninguno, no sería imperativo?
(Creo que ya estamos en otro rollo, y quiero hacerme claro.. agradezco toda la ayuda aquí, no trato de ser difícil  )

_
exhortativo -va. Se aplica a las oraciones o enunciados que sirven para exhortar ('pedir a alguien que haga o deje de hacer algo'): Estaos quietos; No os vayáis. El subjuntivo exhortativo es el empleado con esta intención: ¡Que te calles!; No se vayan._


----------



## Milton Sand

Hi there,
There is no way that "he" can be an imperative form of "haber". Even though imperatives of "haber" are not used since centuries ago, they are still in the dictionaries: HABER (the link opens a DPD's appendix; please, scroll the page down to read the following): "_Las formas heredadas del latín son_ habe _y_ habed, _pero carecen totalmente de uso en la actualidad."_

Adverb "he" (inherited from Arabic) is the usual explanation for expressions like "he aquí". Still, this "he" might actually be the conjugation "_[yo] he_" with an arcaic sense of haber: "tener _(to have got)_":

*He* *aquí* otra explicación ante vuestros ojos. 
_*I have got* another explation *here *before your eyes._
*Here you* are* have* another explanation before your eyes.

That was my thought when I was a young boy. And it has sense to me yet.

Regards


----------



## obz

Yes, well aware of 'hay' 'he aquí' etc/
I would have never even thought of it, until before the thread was split, and someone linked to the RAE table for haber... Which at the bottom lists 'he' as the second person imperative. I had never seen or even thought of imperative uses for it.... hence my apparent confusion 

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Milton Sand

obz said:


> ¿Y si no hay ninguno, no sería imperativo?
> (Creo que ya estamos en otro rollo, y quiero hacerme claro.. agradezco toda la ayuda aquí, no trato de ser difícil  )
> 
> 
> _exhortativo -va. Se aplica a las oraciones o enunciados que sirven para exhortar ('pedir a alguien que haga o deje de hacer algo'): Estaos quietos; No os vayáis. El subjuntivo exhortativo es el empleado con esta intención: ¡Que te calles!; No se vayan._


Hi again,
If there is none, it's just unmentioned:  ¡[[Ordeno/Deseo] que] haya luz!

Imperative mood only works when there's someone to be given a command or directions, who would receive (hear/read) the order and then perform it. When one simply expresses one's wish/will to the air, hoping (or knowing) that someone will do something about it, it's exhortative subjunctive (intended to encourage, incite, or advise).

By the way, you were so right, *it's "Sea la luz"!* But people (at least my people) say colloquially that God's words were, "Hágase la luz". Hence my mistake.

Can you give us the link you said that shows a table with "he" as imperative?

Regards again


----------



## obz

Claro

http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=haber

Este enlace no te dirigirá directamente allí... hay que hacer 'click' sobre _conjugar_.
Una vez que hayas llegado, verás justo debajo de todas las otras formas que hay:
'Imperativo'
'he (tú / vos)'

Y mil gracias por haberme entretenido en este asunto interesante


----------



## Milton Sand

I've got news: I made a phone call to the _Academia Colombiana_. They told me it's a mistake, but the correction won't be available before 2013, when the new release of the DRAE will be published.

They said that, actually, only "habe" and "habed" and perhaps "haben [ustedes]" would be valid imperative froms of "haber", but those forms are not used anyway.

So, let's wait for four years... 

Regards


----------



## obz

¡Divertidísimo! ¿Honradamente llamaste a la Academia Colombia? Increíble.
Pues gracias de nuevo 

Before today, the thought of imperative for haber hadn't occurred to me, but then, there it was in the DRAE table...

Thanks for clarifying (not to mention going to such great lengths!)

¡Saludos!


----------



## mrbob

I have wondered this myself since the imperative form _he_ is given in the list for _haber_ in the 501 Verbs book.  

When I first saw it listed I thought they it was included for the sake of completion, however the 501 Verbs books fails to be complete with other verbs such as _nevar_ which omits forms like _nievo, I am snowing_, because it is never used (though I suppose that if the weather were somehow personified in a piece of literature and spoke, it could be used).


----------



## obz

mrbob said:


> I have wondered this myself since the imperative form _he_ is given in the list for _haber_ in the 501 Verbs book.
> 
> When I first saw it listed I thought they it was included for the sake of completion, however the 501 Verbs books fails to be complete with other verbs such as _nevar_ is not completely given, omitting forms like _nievo, I am snowing_, because it is never used (though I suppose that if the weather were somehow personified in a piece of literature and spoke, it could be used).



Yeah, they do the same with other natural phenomenon related verbs. Like 'atardecer' or 'amanecer', always seen in conjugation tables as only being in the 3rd person.
However a friend of mine from Colombia will say once in a while '¿Cómo amaneces pana?' or 'Llámame cuando amanezcas'

In English you would next to never say 'You rain', but 'Don't rain on my parade' is quite common.

Just further evidence that not even books have all the answers .


----------



## Forero

La estructura en que se usa _he_ es igual a la de un imperativo.  El significado de _he_ es impersonal, como _hay_, no adverbial:

_He aquí el resultado.
_Here's the result.
_
He aquí a tu madre.
_Behold, thy mother.

_Heme aquí.
_Here I am.

_Henos ya en casa_.
Here we are at home.


----------



## Milton Sand

Yes, Forero, it has imperative and impersonal intonation and usage, but is not an imperative or an impersonal conjugation of any verb. 

We use adverb "he" to get the attention of our public, whether being just one person or a lot of people, or in a rhetorical sense. I mean, there is no plural version of "he" like there is for all imperative forms.

If it were an impersonal conjugation, what verb would it belong to? "Haber" does not means "to look", or "to aim the attention to", or "to be found", or any other meaning that matches the uses of "he". The only applicable meaning of "haber" might be the arcaic "tener (_to have got_)", but it would mean "I have got", which actualy makes some sense in your examples sentences: _Henos ya en casa = I have got us at home now_.

By the way, and very interesting, I can't remember any other adverb that can have a direct object pronoun attached. It's quite a particular word!

In my opinion, "he" has both impersonal and adverbial senses like a phrase can have, like "hay aquí" or "el lugar donde hay que buscar (a alguien/algo) es...":

Henos ya en casa_ = The place where to look for us is home now._ = Here we are at home.
He aquí a tu madre_. = The place where to look for your mother is here. = Behold, thy mother._

Since averbs can replace a whole sentence, "he" should be considered an adverb, as the DRAE says:
*he¹**.*
(Del ár. hisp. _há,_ y este del ár. clás. _hā_).
*1. *adv. Unido a _aquí,_ _ahí_ y _allí,_ o con los pronombres _me,_ _te,_ _la,_ _le,_ _lo,_ _las,_ _los,_ se usa para señalar o mostrar a alguien o algo. ​Regards


----------



## Forero

It would be odd indeed for an Arabic adverb to take a Latin suffix:

_Hasta me permitieron tomar champaña._ [No se dice "Hástame permitieron ...."]

How would they say "he aquí" in Arabic?

My best guess is that _he _is a shortened form of _hay_. Maybe _hay_ was imagined to be "habet illic" (as French "il y a"), and _he_ was meant as plain "habet" without the "illic".

Doesn't "He de estar aquí a las dos" mean "I am to be here at two"? That would be another connection between "he" and "I am" besides "Heme aquí" = "Here I am."


----------



## Milton Sand

Forero said:


> It would be odd indeed for an Arabic adverb to take a Latin suffix:
> 
> _Hasta me permitieron tomar champaña._ [No se dice "Hástame permitieron ...."]
> 
> How would they say "he aquí" in Arabic?
> 
> My best guess is that _he _is a shortened form of _hay_. Maybe _hay_ was imagined to be "habet illic" (as French "il y a"), and _he_ was meant as plain "habet" without the "illic".
> 
> Doesn't "He de estar aquí a las dos" mean "I am to be here at two"? That would be another connection between "he" and "I am" besides "Heme aquí" = "Here I am."


No, wait. Antonic pronouns are not suffixes. Besides, all languages have several constructions daring their own grammars. This is one of the Spanish's cases.

"Haber de" is an expression referring obligation, predestination, determination and other "-ations" that is often translated into English as "to be to". But simply "to be" not a synonym of simply "haber".

Anyway, "he" as a verb only agrees with "yo" (simple present indicative). There is no other "he" in the family of "haber". There are no registers of the evolution you suggest from "habet" to an impersonal "he".

Regards,


----------



## Forero

I think I know the answer, but:

Since _vas_ in indicative and _vayas_ in subjunctive correspond to _ve_ in imperative, then why wouldn't _has_ in indicative and _hayas_ in subjunctive correspond to _he_ in imperative?

I don't know the answer to this one:

Is there any evidence in any other language (Catalan, Gallego, Leonés, Mozarabic,  Old Spanish, Arabic, Aramaic, etc.) of some reflex of _habet_ or of this Arabic adverb _ha_ being used as in "he aquí", or is it unique to modern Castillian?


----------



## ManPaisa

Portuguese does.

The Portuguese version of _*helo aquí*_ is _*ei-lo aqui.*_


Note:   Edited to correct spelling from *hei-lo* to *ei-lo.*


----------



## Forero

Is there a Portuguese dictionary similar to the DRAE that gives an origin for _hei_ as in _hei-lo aqui_?


----------



## sazabius

Now I have a doubt, if I say

Oye bufón, tú habeis de colocar esa espada de regreso en su vaina.
or
tú haz de colocar esa espada de regreso en su vaina

are not imperative forms for haber in second person?

Sazabius


----------



## obz

¿Haz? ¿Qué tiene que ver con haber?
'Has de...' sería indicativo, sinónimo de 'deberías....' o 'debes de'
"You should / you ought to put that sword back in it's sheath'

¿Y el otro, quisiste decir
'Tú has...' o 'Vosotros habéis...' ?

De todos modos son indicativos, si no me equivoco.


----------



## sazabius

Tienes toda la razón.  Dios he olvidado tanto mi propio lenguaje.


----------



## NewdestinyX

obz said:


> 'Has de...' sería indicativo, sinónimo de 'deberías....' o 'debes de'
> "You should / you ought to put that sword back in it's sheath'
> .


Not quite, Obz.. Has de = you have to.. It's a pretty strong conjugation in Spain synonymous with 'tienes que/debes' --but not 'deberías' or 'debes de'. And 'debes de' and 'deberías' are different as we learned in the 'deber (obligation)' thread. One book I have says that 'haber de' in Mexico is 'to be supposed to'. But 'has de' would never be 'imperative'. "Ha de" could be.

Grant


----------



## Milton Sand

Forero said:


> Since _vas_ in indicative and _vayas_ in subjunctive correspond to _ve_ in imperative, then why wouldn't _has_ in indicative and _hayas_ in subjunctive correspond to _he_ in imperative?


Because "Ir" is a quite irregular verb, so it should not be used as a model. Besides, I thought you were considering "he" to be an impersonal form. If impersonal, note that "he" is not only used to get the attention of a _tú_, but also _vosotros/ustedes_: _Señoras y señores, he aquí con ustedes a nuestro invitado especial: ¡Fulano de Tal!_

Why doesn't "he" belong to he "haber" family? History of Spanish language has an explanation: ancient "haber" was "habere", in times certain words began with an "f" like: _facer_ (today's _hacer_), _fermosa_ (_hermosa_), _formica_ (_hormiga_) and *fe* (_he_, the word we are talking about): _Fe aquí aquesta fermosa doncella. _=_ He aquí a esta hermosa doncella._

This intial "f" became aspired in some words, then written as a "h" and later the "h" lost it's sound. This proves that "fe/he" had/has nothing to do with "habere/haber".

Some grammarians consider it to be a verb on its own. The most defective verb ever! It has no infinitive, or other conjugations, no other form! They even do not know which pronoun agrees with "he". If it were a impersonal-imperative unique form, the speaker would be commanding the cosmos (or an ethereal entity) to perform the action of paying attention. But the expression "he" is always aimed to somebody, who should be referred to by the agreeing pronoun.

I know we can't deny the strange verbal-like behavior of "he". But it's originally an arabic word. I mean, I do not know Arabic language, but if Arabic "há" was a verb, well, "he" is not a verb in Spanish.

That's all I got... I am dreaming with this issue! 

Regards


----------



## ManPaisa

Milton: 
I really liked your explanation that* he* is actually the conjugation *Yo he: I have.* It made sense to me. Tell me, why are you now dismissing it, saying that the term does come from Arabic?


----------



## Milton Sand

_Qui'o, pues, paisita, hom'e:_

Well, that's what I used to think. I really like it too but I didn't dare to state it was actually "[yo] he". It still makes sense to me and today I feel it that way when saying "he aquí". 

History tells another story: acient for "haber" was "habere" and ancient for "he" was "fe". Only "ir" and "ser" change their roots in their conjugations, with a very clear historical explanation. Other verbs seem to change but the resulting pronunciation keeps the taste like "errar" with its "yerro" instead of "ierro", or "caber" with its "quepo". But "haber/habere" doesn't really do that (haya, hayamos, etc. still share the "ha-") and it never has used an initial "f". The conclusion, once again: the demostrative/adverb/imperative/whatever-word-it-is "*he*" is not related to "haber".

I am amazed: such a little word, such a lot of work.

Regards


----------



## Forero

If _he_ really was derived from a form with initial _f_, I would also expect an initial _f_ in Portuguese.  On top of that, _fe_ could not come from Arabic _ha_.


----------



## Milton Sand

Forero said:


> If _he_ really was derived from a form with initial _f_, I would also expect an initial _f_ in Portuguese. On top of that, _fe_ could not come from Arabic _ha_.


But it does appear as "fe aquí" in the original version of "El mío Cid" (Well, they say so. I haven't read it myself). Maybe the "f" was adopted as a habit of ancient Spaniards. I can't figure out the evolution steps from "há" to "fe". Far from being a supposition, that's what is registered.

Regards


----------



## Forero

I still feel that _he_ [_aquí_] must be a form of _haber_ just as _hay_ and [_yo_] _he_ are.

The _e_ of 1st person _he_ and the _ay_ of _hay_ both derive from  whatever diphthong _habeo_ and _habet_ had after the _b_ was lost, presumably a diphthong like _ai_ or _æ_. The _ei_ diphthong of Portuguese often corresponds to _e_ in Castillian and _ai_ in other Romance languages.

How would an Arabic _ha_ have become _ei_ in Portuguese?

I'll guess that _fe_ might have been an overcorrection for _he_ with perhaps a folk etymology from _hacer_/_facer_.  If _he_ were adverbial, why would the _h_ be confused with _f_?  On the other hand, couldn't we as easily call _hay_ adverbial as _he_ [_aquí_]?


----------



## Pinairun

Has anybody read this in _Diccionario de dudas_, by Manuel Seco?

*he. *
La palabra _he _(en _he aquí, he ahí) _no es, como suelen decir las gramáticas y los diccionarios, ni imperativo del verbo _haber _ni adverbio demostrativo. *Es un* *verbo defectivo e impersonal*. Expresa la mera existencia de algo en un lugar, como el impersonal _hay; _pero se diferencia de este en que presenta siempre esa existencia «ante los ojos» del oyente. Es invariable: no tiene otra forma personal, temporal ni modal que esta.

Lleva siempre dos acompañantes forzosos:

1.°, el adverbio _aquí _o _allí _(en ocasiones otro complemento adverbial de lugar: _Henos ya _EN CASA);
2.°, un complemento directo: _He aquí el resultado; He aquí a tu madre; Heme aquí. _
Es palabra de uso principalmente literario.​ 
And what do you think about it?​


----------



## Outsider

In Portuguese grammar, _eis_ (the equivalent of _he_ as in _he aquí_) is analysed as an adverb, even though it does behave somewhat like a verb, syntactically.

I used to think that _eis_ originated in the Latin _ecce_ - their meaning seems to be the same - but the authorities I've consulted say that its origin is uncertain, though probably Arabic.*

Here's a reference with discussions (in Portuguese).

By the way, in Portuguese this adverbial is different from the 1st. person singular of the verb _haver_, which is _hei_. The "h" is silent, but there's no "s" at the end. Also, it's normal to use _eis_ alone, without _aqui_. (These two facts are probably related.)

* This is what I recall reading. Interestingly, the source I gave above suggests a different etymon: *Latin ex*.


----------

