# All Slavic Languages: know - vedeti, znati



## TriglavNationalPark

Split from here.

Another interesting thing I noticed in this thread is the well known divide (isogloss) between languages that use* vedet-* and languages that use* znat-* in the sense of "to know (something or someone)". Slovenian lies right on this divide, so some dialects use *znati *(like other modern South Slavic languages), while others use *vedeti *(like the West Slavic languages, for instance). Standard Slovenian uses *vedeti*, the only modern South Slavic language with this feature as far as I know (*znati* in standard Slovenian means "to know how to"/"to be able to"/"to have a command of").

Maybe a linguist can tell us more about this (and/or correct anything I said)!


----------



## iobyo

TriglavNationalPark said:
			
		

> Another interesting thing I noticed in this thread is the well known divide (isogloss) between languages that use* vedet-* and languages that use* znat-* in the sense of "to know (something or someone)". Slovenian lies right on this divide, so some dialects use *znati *(like other modern South Slavic languages), while others use *vedeti *(like the West Slavic languages, for instance). Standard Slovenian uses *vedeti*, the only modern South Slavic language with this feature as far as I know (*znati* in standard Slovenian means "to know how to"/"to be able to"/"to have a command of").



I have always wondered about these two words. The folklorist Marko Cepenkov gives the word _веш_ in one of his works with the Bulgarian translation _знаеш _(look at my attachment, eighth paragraph down). Apart from this, I've heard a few elderly people utter this word on occasion and never known what they meant until I began studying other Slavic languages.


----------



## slavic_one

In CBS there is only "znati", like in Russian as well. In Czech, Slovak and Polish, there is both vědět/vedieť/wiedzieć and znat/znať/znać! Difference is that vědět/vedieť/wiedzieć means to know something (some fact) while znat/znať/znać means to know someone (about something) (some person, band, film ... ).


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

slavic_one said:


> In Czech, Slovak and Polish, there is both vědět/vedieť/wiedzieć and znat/znať/znać!



The same is true in Slovenian:

*Znati* means "to be able to do something" (example: "Znam voziti avto" = "I know how to drive a car")

*Poznati* means "to know someone or something" (example: "Poznam tega igralca" = "I know this actor")

*Vedeti* means "to know" in virtually all other contexts (example: "Vem, koliko je ura" = "I know what time it is")


----------



## winpoj

Czech seems to be even more complicated than that:

I know how to drive a car = Umím řídit auto. (umět)

I know this actor = Znám toho herce. (znát)

I know what time it is = Vím, kolik je hodin. (vědět)

"Poznat" means to be able to identify someone or something. 

Znám toho herce, ale včera jsem ho na ulici nepoznal, protože byla tma.

I know that actor but I could'n tell it was him in the street yesterday  because it was dark.


----------



## slavic_one

TriglavNationalPark said:
			
		

> *Znati* means "to be able to do something" (example: "Znam voziti avto" = "I know how to drive a car")





			
				winpoj said:
			
		

> I know how to drive a car = Umím řídit auto. (umět)



As winpoj just said, it's not same in Slovenian as you mentioned. To be able to do sth is "umět" in Czech (you can also say "umím česky") or "umieć" in Polish, while in Slovak you can use "dokázať" or "byť schopný", but I think sometimes you can use even "vedieť", I would like if Miloš or some Slovak on forum could tell weather it's correct.



			
				winpoj said:
			
		

> "Poznat" means to be able to identify someone or something.



That's what I didn't know, I thought that's same as "znat", thanks! In Croatian, "poznati" is to know someone personaly, but you can also say "znati".


----------



## iobyo

In Macedonian we also have the verb _умее_ but it's slowly being replaced by _знае_ and you'll rarely hear it used in conversation. It can be mostly found in idiomatic expressions and proverbs, such as the following:



_Ајде, покажи ми што знаеш и умееш!_ ("Come on, show me what you've got!" or "Come on, hit me with your best shot!")
_Тој ништо не умее!_ ("He's good for nothing!")


----------



## skye

winpoj said:


> Znám toho herce, ale včera jsem ho na ulici nepoznal, protože byla tma.
> 
> I know that actor but I could'n tell it was him in the street yesterday because it was dark.


 
In Slovenian you would use the verb prepoznati (= to recognise) in this case.

Poznam tega igralca, ampak včeraj ga na ulici nisem prepoznal, ker je bila tema.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Slovenian also once commonly used *umeti*, but it's now archaic. _Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika _gives the following example:

"Ume brati in pisati." = "He/she knows how to read and write."

Various cognates of "umeti" survive, however: *doumeti* = to comprehend; *umen* = intelligent, talented, rational; *neumen* = stupid, *umenje* = comprehension, etc.


----------



## slavic_one

iobyo said:


> In Macedonian we also have the verb _умее_ but it's slowly being replaced by _знае_ and you'll rarely hear it used in conversation. It can be mostly found in idiomatic expressions and proverbs, such as the following:
> 
> 
> 
> _Ајде, покажи ми што знаеш и умееш!_ ("Come on, show me what you've got!" or "Come on, hit me with your best shot!")
> _Тој ништо не умее!_ ("He's good for nothing!")



Same in Croatian tho.. we have "umjeti" but rarely used.



skye said:


> In Slovenian you would use the verb prepoznati (= to recognise) in this case.
> 
> Poznam tega igralca, ampak včeraj ga na ulici nisem prepoznal, ker je bila tema.



Yes, also same in Croatian, forgot to mention these verbs.. we have "prepoznati" in same meaning.

And also we have "raspoznati" :
Hoćeš li moći raspoznati koje je koje kada vidiš. (Will you be able to tell (the difference) which is which when you see it.)


----------



## WannaBeMe

I also see some similarities between *zna*ti and *know* (eng.) or co*gna*re (lat.)(protoslavic- gnati). Analog *vede*ti and german wissen [old german witen ( ik weit ...)] and similar to another germanic nations. Perhaps a bit moved from the real theme but also interesting.


----------



## Mišo

slavic_one said:


> As winpoj just said, it's not same in Slovenian as you mentioned. To be able to do sth is "umět" in Czech (you can also say "umím česky") or "umieć" in Polish, while in Slovak you can use "dokázať" or "byť schopný", but I think sometimes you can use even "vedieť", I would like if Miloš or some Slovak on forum could tell weather it's correct.



Yes, we do not use umím.

We say most commonly *viem* šoférovať/viesť motorové vozidlo for simpliciter "I can drive car".

*Som schopný/dokážem* riadiť auto we use for example when someone can drive car without drinking alcohol before.


----------



## Kanes

On Bulgarian, vidish means to see and could be used in the same was as on english, to see something, to understand. Also vesht which is related means to be smart, knowing. So there is a conection between seeing and knowing.


----------



## sokol

Kanes said:


> On Bulgarian, vidish means to see and could be used in the same was as on english, to see something, to understand. Also vesht which is related means to be smart, knowing. So there is a conection between seeing and knowing.


But _vidish _then, I think, is what would be _videti _in Slovenian (and similar in other Slavic languages), right? (Sorry, I don't speak Bulgarian and I am not sure if I've got the correct 1st person singular in my dictionary - where Bulgarian verbs are given in 1st person; would this be видя < видиш?)

If so this would be a different verb altogether; there is of course a semantic relation between seeing and knowing, but as far as "to know - vedeti, znati" is concerned only Bulgarian зная - 2nd person знаяш - then would be relevant, meaning both _vedeti _and_ znati,_ right? (That is, like in BCS with only one word for which in Slovenian and other Slavic languages have two words, _znati _and _vedeti_.)
(And please correct me if I'm wrong.)


----------



## Kanes

You are generally right, sorry for posting the word in this form, but I think it is closer to вещ, which means knowledgeable. The 1st person of see is _виждам, видиш_ is the 2nd person when used with _to_ infront, meaning _to see/know/understand._ Sort of creating a continuation between see and know.

I think forms of videti/know with similar meaning excist in South Slavic languages, just they have shifted more toward the physical seeing then knowing. The two concepts being on the 2 ends. Those are archaic in most cases though, or have slighly different meaning that is not used very often. I guess it is like any dialectual continium...


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Kanes said:


> I think forms of videti/know with similar meaning excist in South Slavic languages, just they have shifted more toward the physical seeing then knowing.


 
But Slovenian has both *videti* ("to see") and *vedeti* ("to know"). I think it's the same in other languages that use *vedeti*. Therefore, I'm not sure that there really was a _shift_ from one meaning to the other. It could be just be a different, yet related, proto-Slavic root; I'll check this out in my etymological dictionary when I get a chance.


----------



## Darina

I wonder if vedeti has something in connon with Indian Vedas?


----------



## sokol

TriglavNationalPark said:


> But Slovenian has both *videti* ("to see") and *vedeti* ("to know"). I think it's the same in other languages that use *vedeti*. Therefore, I'm not sure that there really was a _shift_ from one meaning to the other. It could be just be a different, yet related, proto-Slavic root; I'll check this out in my etymological dictionary when I get a chance.


Thank you, that is what I meant.
Old Church Slavonic had _vedeti = věděti = to know _(ě = jat) and _videti = viděti = to know_; both verbs certainly look very similar but _viděti _seems to be regular in OCS (? - I haven't found a paradigm in my OCS grammar, thus it _should _be a regular one) while _věděti _is slightly irregular (as in Slovenian), compare present tense OCS (1st/2nd/3rd person sg.): _věmь (or __v__ě__d__ě__, __věsi, __věstъ _- Slov. _vem, veš, ve_ vs. Slov. _vidim, vidiš, vidi._

So it is clear that at least at OCS level both _vedeti _and _videti _were different verbs.
Nevertheless it would be possible of course that they both go back to the same roots on an older level (Common Slavic or even before that), therefore please check your etymological dictionary. 



Darina said:


> I wonder if vedeti has something in connon with Indian Vedas?


I think it has, but this would be a question for EHL forum.


----------



## WannaBeMe

First of all, videti i vedeti have nothing to do with eachother, it´s just a coincidence that these two words look similar [in OCS vedeti (vem, vesi...)-to know, and videti (vizdu, vidisi...)-to see]. 
BCS doesn´t have vedeti in the meaning know, but if BCS would have it, it would look like _vediti_ or _vedeti_ but it would be possible also _vedati_.
BUT BCS has different words with the same stem as vedeti:
*ves*t-information, massage,tale, report...
ispo*ves*t or ispo*ved*-avowal
ispo*ved*_i_ti (se)-confess, unburden (ispo*ved*_a_ti (se)-just imperfective form)
po*vijes*t-history
(pri)po*ved*ati-narrate, tell a story
pripo*vet*ka<--pripo*ved*ka-story,tale

I would like to know what the same words in other languages look like.


----------



## Kolan

slavic_one said:


> In CBS there is only "znati", like in Russian as well.


Actually, in Russian both exist, *знать *and *ведать*. *Ведать *is rather archaic and now is only used in speech within the expressions, like *"не знать, не ведать"*,and may also  convey additional meanings as compared to* знать. *E.g., *ведать *хозяйством = *look after* a household, etc.

*ВЕДАТЬ*
ВЕДАТЬ, ведаю, ведаешь, несов. 
1. что. Знать, иметь о чем-н. сведения (книжн. устар). Да ведают потомки православных земли родной минувшую судьбу. Пушкин. 
2. что (устар.) и чем. Управлять, заведывать чем-н., наблюдать за чем-н. (офиц.). Кому это ведать надлежит. Он ведает хозяйственной частью наркомата.
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/754790


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

WannaBeMe said:


> I would like to know what the same words in other languages look like.


 
Most are similar in Slovenian (even though *povest* means "story" rather than "history"), but *povedati* has a somewhat broader meaning in Slovenian, as it does in several other languages that use *vedeti *on a regular basis (I'm not sure whether or not this is just a coincidence).

In Slovenian, *povedati* means simply "to tell":

"*Povedali* so mi, koliko je ura" = "They told me what time it was."
"*Povej* mi, kje naj se dobiva" = "Tell me where we're supposed to meet."
"Mora ti *povedati*, koliko je stara" = "She has to tell you how old she is."

*Pripovedovati*, on the other hand, means "to narrate/tell a story".


----------



## cajzl

In Proto-Slavic *vědě* was the preteritum (past tense) of *viděti *(= to see).

*vědě* = I have seen (it) therefore I know (it)

Hence the "new" verb *věděti* which is athematic (irregular).

the verb *viděti* is a cognate of Lat. videre, Gr. histor (< vidtor), ...
*věst* (věd-t-) and *hist*oria (vid-t-) are cognates


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

cajzl said:


> In Proto-Slavic *vědě* was the preteritum (past tense) of *viděti *(= to see). (...)


 
This is truly fascinating! Thanks!


----------



## Panda Nocta

Belarusian has ведаць, but not the other form (_znati_) TTBOMN.


----------



## WannaBeMe

cajzl said:


> In Proto-Slavic *vědě* was the preteritum (past tense) of *viděti *(= to see). (...)



I didn´t know that Proto-Slavic had the Preteritum. I thought that this tense is commonly only in Germanic languages. Could you explain your coment more precise or give me a link where I can read more about it.


----------



## sokol

WannaBeMe said:


> I didn´t know that Proto-Slavic had the Preteritum. I thought that this tense is commonly only in Germanic languages. Could you explain your coment more precise or give me a link where I can read more about it.


In German preterite also is called imperfect - both mean the same tense in German. And the German tense system in itself is a deviation of the IE one as use of past tenses is more a matter of style than anything (and hasn't much to do with aktionsart at all).

cajzl, your post indeed is very fascinating as it seems that both verbs indeed are related historically.
But what tense did you mean by "preteritum" exactly?

In Old Church Slavonic there were past tense (copula + past participle), aorist and imperfect (and plu'perfect and future tense of course which in this context however are irrelevant).

Did Proto-Slavic have an additional tense called preterite? I wouldn't know, but the mere proposition sounds strange to me.
Preterite, by the way, should be (if) rather aorist than imperfect.


----------



## WannaBeMe

Well, *Sokol* it is unusual for Slavic or Italic languages to use the word praeteritum because it means just past. In German it is realy so. Praeteritum is just past, you don´t know if it happened in the nearly past or long time ago, if the action was countinuous or just momentaly. But OCS had more than one past tense,which have deeper meanings, so I thought it would NOT be really compatible to say praeteritum instead of aorist or imperfect. I think you have to agree with me.

And *cajzl*, I don´t realy get it, what do you mean, which tense, which time, which language. Do you mean Athematic Aorist for praeteritum or what? I have no have idea because vidieti (I am sorry, I don´t have *ě *onmy keybord) has the Thematic-Aorist-Flexion.
I know that the Middle-High-German verb *wittan* (weitt, weisst, weitt, wittan, wittet, wittand), which has some similarities with viedieti, is developed from a praeteritum. But can you adopt this to OCS?
So it would be nice if you would specify your arguements. Thanks


----------



## WannaBeMe

If you don´t understand what I mean:
Your explaination is very interesting and makes sense but I just think that viedie is not the past tense (which ever) of vidieti. Perhaps in Proto-Proto-Slavic but you know that´s not Slavic anymore 
vidietei-to see , vidio>vidju>vizdu (1.sg.pres.), vidiesu>vidies>vidieh (1.sg.aorist, possible originally future), vidijaasu>vidjaas>vizdah (1.sg.imperfect).
viedietei-to know, viedm>viem (1.sg.pres.), viediesu.... but I don´t see viedie nowhere, sorry.


----------



## sokol

WannaBeMe said:


> Well, *Sokol* it is unusual for Slavic or Italic languages to use the word praeteritum because it means just past. In German it is realy so. (...)


Yes of course I agree. 
WannaBeMe, this is basically what I tried to say in my post.

Further I guess that cajzl probably meant aorist (with "praeteritum"). I did formulate it the way I did out of politeness; probably you misunderstood this beating-about-the-bush of me.

Also I did look up aorist and imperfect paradigms of Old Church Slavonic; Proto-Slavic (which of course is a constructed language) is however different. And as both "vedeti" and "videti" are semantically somewhat related (this is true for "to see" and "to know" in general for many IE languages) it wouldn't be unlikely for Proto-Slavic deriving "vedeti" from "videti".
The only thing which is something of a spot in an else spotless (seemingly) explanation of cajzl is - the use of "praeteritum" which seems to not make much sense.

Therefore I hope that cajzl will shed some light on this so that there's no misunderstanding about it.


----------



## sokol

I checked in Slovenski etimološki slovar and found that cajzl's etymology is perfectly okay, according to that source.

It says further: 'to je izvorno (medialni) perfekt', and 'vědě' is first person singular in Praslovanski (Proto-Slavic).

Unfortunately I can't make head nor tail of this tense description in Slovenian; it might be that the old (synthetic) IE perfect is meant which is represented in Slavic languages with copula + past participle (and which might still have existed at reconstructed Proto-Slavic stage) - and which indeed is the German "preterite" even though this nowadays is a general past and has nothing to to with the meaning of perfect.

The formation of 'vědě' would make this likely: the ending could be interpreted as 1st person present singular (well - not quite as it is an athematic verb, as discussed here, but I don't know what changes took place between Proto-Slavic and OCS).
IE perfect has present tense endings and a prefix and/or change of vowel in the stem (ablaut).
And while I was writing this I stumbled over Szemerényi, Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (p. 313, my translation):


> The form of _*woidai_ which I just mentioned also is the root for the only one clearly attested survival [of perfect] in Slavonic: vede 'I know' (...)


(Strange diacritics I left out. )

So I think ... mystery solved.


----------



## sokol

Moderator note:

I have copied all Etymology related posts to this thread in EHL forum; please continue further discussion on etymology in the new thread. However, as the etymology parts are interesting also concerning the orginal question I have left them in this thread, I have only trimmed some quotes.

On this thread further discussion should be continued on the meaning, use and occurence of *vedeti and **znati - to know,* in all Slavic languages.

Thank you!
sokol
Moderator


----------

