# Macedonian: origin of ќе



## Whodunit

Hello, 

while scrutinizing the future tense in many languages, I've come across the future particle _ќе _in Macedonian. However, I'm not too sure about its origin. According to the theory of the Balkan sprachbund, it's supposed to mean "to want" or "to will". This websites supports this theory, but I don't know what they mean by _xuteti_. The IDIVIDI can't help me with a proper word for "to want" that could have developed into _ќе _either.

Could someone else make an attempt at an etymology of _ќе_, please? 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## jazyk

> The IDIVIDI can't help me with a proper word for "to want" that could have developed into _ќе _either.


Probably related to caка.

Which reminds of something I've read about Croatian: hoću vs. ću. I bet they have something in common with ќе.


----------



## Kanes

'ке' is the same as official bulgarian 'ще'. Comes from 'щъ' (I want), we use both.


----------



## Whodunit

jazyk said:


> Probably related to caка.



That's what I thought, but how are _c_ and _ќ_ related? Do they appear together in some conjugations? Or could you show me the conjugation of caка, should it be irregular?



> Which reminds of something I've read about Croatian: hoću vs. ću. I bet they have something in common with ќе.



Yes, I guess so, too. On further research, I've found out that the previous mentioned _xoteti _referred to an Old Church Slavonic verb _xotě ti_ (= to want to). Croatian and Macedonian, as well as some other Balkan languages have adopted this use for the future tense.

Jazyk, could you perhaps help me conjugate the verb _hoću_? By the way, don't Croatian verbs usually end in _-ti_?



Kanes said:


> 'ке' is the same as official bulgarian 'ще'. Comes from 'щъ' (I want), we use both.



Yes, I've done some research on this future particle, too. But your answer leads me to my next question: Is _щъ _the infinitive? I thought there was no infinitive form in Bulgarian, so I should use   _ща_, but I may be wrong.


----------



## jazyk

> That's what I thought, but how are _c_ and _ќ_ related? Do they appear together in some conjugations? Or could you show me the conjugation of caка, should it be irregular?


Look at the second syllable of saka. 

Hoću is the first person singular of a certain verb, which I don't know because I don't speak Croatian. I just remember seeing it once.


----------



## Whodunit

jazyk said:


> Look at the second syllable of saka.
> 
> Hoću is the first person singular of a certain verb, which I don't know because I don't speak Croatian. I just remember seeing it once.



Okay, again I've gone a bit deeper into this topic, and this is what I could find:


the infinitive of hoću (1st Sg. present) is "htjeti"
ću is the elided form
the future tense is formed by the declined particle "ću/ćeš/ću/cémo/ćete/će and the infinitive
ću and ќе are obvious cognates, but I don't know about the rule
This makes things clearer. I think caка is a good starting point.


----------



## Kanes

'щъ' is the same as 'искам' and 'сакам'. For example when we say I dont want, we usually say 'нещъ'. There is no infinitive you are right, all of those are in 1st person.

'сака' as given above is in 3th person so gives me doughts that 'ке' came from it. The example with Croation is unprobably because it has very different grammer. Slavic languages don't have the particle ще/ке


----------



## b_fly

Kanes said:


> The example with Croation is unprobably because it has very different grammer.


 
Are you sure? I really think it's the same thing, it sounds so similar, and it come on similar places, I don't know...

Macedonian - *ke* bidat 
Croatian - *će* biti */* bit *će*



*But, I have another question about ke. When do you read it ke and when će, because I heard both! Does it depend of person himself? *

*Is it different in Macedonian and Bulgarian?*


----------



## Duya

Depends on the dialect, I suppose. See note 1 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_phonology#Consonants and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kje.


----------



## Whodunit

Kanes said:


> 'щъ' is the same as 'искам' and 'сакам'. For example when we say I dont want, we usually say 'нещъ'. There is no infinitive you are right, all of those are in 1st person.



But is _щъ _the word for "I want"? I thought it was _ща_.



> 'сака' as given above is in 3th person so gives me doughts that 'ке' came from it.



Could someone perhaps conjugate the verb _сака _to make this sure?



> The example with Croation is unprobably because it has very different grammer. Slavic languages don't have the particle ще/ке


I don't understand that. Both Croatian and Macedonian are Slavic languages, and they might form the future tense the same way. Why not?



b_fly said:


> Croatian - *će* biti */* bit *će*



What's the second part? Is it colloquial, and is the _-i_ at the end of the infinitive usually left out with this construction?


----------



## Duya

Whodunit said:


> I don't understand that. Both Croatian and Macedonian are Slavic languages, and they might form the future tense the same way. Why not?



Indeed they do, and . Don't trust anyone on the internet... to put it mildly. 

The missing link is Common Slavic хотеть (to want), which had short present form щe. (Well, don't take my word for exact letters, but something along those lines). 

Serbo-Croatian also keeps the original verb "htjeti", with full present form (hoću). As far as I know, the modern Bulgarian and Macedonian "*иска*" (want) аnd "*cака*" (like, want) are not cognates with хотеть. 



Whodunit said:


> What's the second part? Is it colloquial, and is the _-i_ at the end of the infinitive usually left out with this construction?



The latter, i.e. it's elided. In Serbian standard, it's elided even further and merged, so the correct spelling is *biće*. There's no real difference in pronunciation though (*bit će* vs. *biće*), as the two sounds naturally merge.


----------



## jazyk

> Could someone perhaps conjugate the verb _сака _to make this sure?


сакам, сакаш, сака, сакаме, сакате, сакаат. Macedonian doesn't have the infinitive. Verbs are normally listed in the 3rd person singular.


----------



## Kanes

We don't have noun cases and the languages are analitic, also we have definete articles and more verb tences. The languages are slavic because of vocabulary, the grammer is different. ke is suppose to come from sakam? Plus it is just a dialect.


----------



## echo chamber

Interesting topic. I'm not sure myself either, so I hope we'll get help from an actual linguist. =)
 Yet, the theory of the origin of ќе from the verb "want, like" is quite plausible, since, as the link that Whodunit posted says, _xuteti _has most likely developed throughout the years into *će biti*, then *ќе *as a Macedonian variant. I can only tell that now, as you already know, it is used as a particle in the formation of the future tense. (will go, will do, etc.)




b_fly said:


> *But, I have another question about ke. When do you read it ke and when će, because I heard both! Does it depend of person himself? *
> 
> *Is it different in Macedonian and Bulgarian?*



In Macedonian, *ќе *is always *ќе*. Its pronounciation is fixed (it is always _ќе_ (кје) ) and has nothing to do with Bulgarian *ще*. It is close to Serbian *će*,  our _ќе_ being more retracted *(kje)*.


----------



## Whodunit

Duya said:


> The missing link is Common Slavic хотеть (to want), which had short present form щe. (Well, don't take my word for exact letters, but something along those lines).



Thanks for the link. That's was very helpful. What I don't understand is what you said about _щe_. Was the first singular present of   _хъtěti _"щe"?



jazyk said:


> сакам, сакаш, сака, сакаме, сакате, сакаат (why not сакат?). Macedonian doesn't have the infinitive. Verbs are normally listed in the 3rd person singular.



Interesting ... and not. Where then does _ќе _come from? It's not an elided verb in the third singular present. Has there been a stage between Old Church Slavonic and Modern Macedonian, in which the conjugation of _сака_ was a bit different?



echo chamber said:


> Interesting topic. I'm not sure myself either, so I hope we'll get help from an actual linguist. =)



Same here. 

 However, could you think of the helpful link between _сака _and _ќе_? When does a _к _change into a _ќ_? How come the ending is not _-a_ but _-e_?

Thanks again for all your responses.


----------



## jazyk

> (why not сакат?).


I don't know.


----------



## echo chamber

*Found it! *
Luckily, I can be stubborn enough sometimes, so this afternoon I've given myself up to digging around in my home, in a search for the right book, _aaaand _it turned out that in my home I have a precious book called: "The History of Macedonian Language" by Blaze Koneski. (Shame on me I haven't thought of it earlier *blush* =D )

*So, it says:*
The particle _ќе_ is a "leftover" from the 3rd p. sing. form of the verb _хтјати_ (htjati) (in the book the verb is also written in Old Cyrillic, but sorry guys, I don't have an Old Cyrillic font on my PC =), which used to form a future tense, together with the infinitive of the verbs. These information has been dated at about *13-14th century.* 
The form of the verb хтјати for 3rd p. singular was _штет_ (shtet). (So, _штет _+ infinitive = future). 
Around *17th century*, the group "шт" was replaced by "ќ" in Macedonian, so "штет" goes into "ќет". Very soon after, the suffix -t was dropped out, so "ќет" becomes "ќе". The first time the particle "ќе" was found in this form was in *1716*, in a written record from the Poloshko monastery, Mariovo (a village in Macedonia). 

However, the particle "ќе" can be still found in various forms throughout our country, as a part of the different dialects. In some western dialects it exists as "ќа", in some eastern parts it is "шта", around the village Бобошчица it is even "жа".
But, of course, these variants are only dialectal and are nearly out of usage, today being found only in the language of the older generations.

So I sincerely hope I was clear enough and I enlightened you with the truth you were all desperately seeking for. I announce this thread "closed". 
...Just kidding, of course ;D  

I feel glad I learned something new about my language today. ;P 




> (why not сакат?).



Because the suffix for 3rd person plural (present) is _-at_, and the infinitive of the verb is _saka_, therefore: saka+at=sakaat. =) (btw., _sakat_ means "crippled, lame"  )


----------



## Kanes

so... щe and ке are dialects.


----------



## Whodunit

echo chamber said:


> *Found it! *
> Luckily, I can be stubborn enough sometimes, so this afternoon I've given myself up to digging around in my home, in a search for the right book, _aaaand _it turned out that in my home I have a precious book called: "The History of Macedonian Language" by Blaze Koneski. (Shame on me I haven't thought of it earlier *blush* =D )



No problem, better late than never. 



> *So, it says:*
> The particle _ќе_ is a "leftover" from the 3rd p. sing. form of the verb _хтјати_ (htjati) (in the book the verb is also written in Old Cyrillic, but sorry guys, I don't have an Old Cyrillic font on my PC =), which used to form a future tense, together with the infinitive of the verbs. These information has been dated at about *13-14th century.*
> The form of the verb хтјати for 3rd p. singular was _штет_ (shtet). (So, _штет _+ infinitive = future).
> Around *17th century*, the group "шт" was replaced by "ќ" in Macedonian, so "штет" goes into "ќет". Very soon after, the suffix -t was dropped out, so "ќет" becomes "ќе". The first time the particle "ќе" was found in this form was in *1716*, in a written record from the Poloshko monastery, Mariovo (a village in Macedonia).



This information is very helpful. That makes things much clearer now - and it helps me with the other South Slavic languages, too. Thank you very much. 



> However, the particle "ќе" can be still found in various forms throughout our country, as a part of the different dialects. In some western dialects it exists as "ќа", in some eastern parts it is "шта", around the village Бобошчица it is even "жа".
> But, of course, these variants are only dialectal and are nearly out of usage, today being found only in the language of the older generations.



Ok, I will remember this as well.



> Because the suffix for 3rd person plural (present) is _-at_, and the infinitive of the verb is _saka_, therefore: saka+at=sakaat. =) (btw., _sakat_ means "crippled, lame"  )



All right. 

Thanks again for all your help and your delightful explanations.


----------



## echo chamber

Kanes said:


> so... щe and ке are dialects.



   No, "ќе" is not a dialect. It's the standard form used throughout the whole country. 
The book I got these pieces of information from was written back in the 60s, so by now most of the old dialectal forms have virtually died out.  

Whodunit says:


> Thanks again for all your help and your delightful explanations.



No problem, any time.


----------



## vikicka

echo chamber said:


> *Found it! *
> Luckily, I can be stubborn enough sometimes, so this afternoon I've given myself up to digging around in my home, in a search for the right book, _aaaand _it turned out that in my home I have a precious book called: "The History of Macedonian Language" by Blaze Koneski. (Shame on me I haven't thought of it earlier *blush* =D )
> 
> *So, it says:*
> The particle _ќе_ is a "leftover" from the 3rd p. sing. form of the verb _хтјати_ (htjati) (in the book the verb is also written in Old Cyrillic, but sorry guys, I don't have an Old Cyrillic font on my PC =), which used to form a future tense, together with the infinitive of the verbs. These information has been dated at about *13-14th century.*
> The form of the verb хтјати for 3rd p. singular was _штет_ (shtet). (So, _штет _+ infinitive = future).
> Around *17th century*, the group "шт" was replaced by "ќ" in Macedonian, so "штет" goes into "ќет". Very soon after, the suffix -t was dropped out, so "ќет" becomes "ќе". The first time the particle "ќе" was found in this form was in *1716*, in a written record from the Poloshko monastery, Mariovo (a village in Macedonia).
> 
> However, the particle "ќе" can be still found in various forms throughout our country, as a part of the different dialects. In some western dialects it exists as "ќа", in some eastern parts it is "шта", around the village Бобошчица it is even "жа".
> But, of course, these variants are only dialectal and are nearly out of usage, today being found only in the language of the older generations.
> 
> So I sincerely hope I was clear enough and I enlightened you with the truth you were all desperately seeking for. I announce this thread "closed".
> ...Just kidding, of course ;D
> 
> I feel glad I learned something new about my language today. ;P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the suffix for 3rd person plural (present) is _-at_, and the infinitive of the verb is _saka_, therefore: saka+at=sakaat. =) (btw., _sakat_ means "crippled, lame"  )


 
Hello 
Great job *echo chamber *only a real Macedonian could give this explanation.....
 
Regarding the question posted by b.fly

*Is it different in **Macedonian and Bulgarian?*

YES, Macedonian is different from Bulgarian: Macedonian is consistent in the use of _ќе_ as a clitic, whereas the equivalent Bulgarian construction involves the inflection of the clitic for tense, person and number as a regular verb (_щях да дойда_, "I would [have] come"; _щеше да дойде_, "he would [have] come").
In Macedonian: _ќе _доjдам, _ќе _доjдe 
 _ќе _доjдeв, _ќе _доjдe_ше_


----------



## Darina

> I thought it was _ща_.


 
Yes, you are right. Аз _ща = _I want (however, it is pronounced _щъ_), 
_Ти щеш = You want_, and so on.


----------



## Whodunit

echo chamber said:


> The particle _ќе_ is a "leftover" from the 3rd p. sing. form of the verb _хтјати_ (htjati) (in the book the verb is also written in Old Cyrillic, but sorry guys, I don't have an Old Cyrillic font on my PC =)



I had to think about what you wrote once more. You told me _хтјати_ is the original verb. For which language is it? Old Macedonian?

And if that is not the Old Cyrillic writing, how else would it look? Can you describe the letters or attach a photo of the entry in your etymological dictionary?

Thanks again.


----------



## echo chamber

Whodunit said:


> I had to think about what you wrote once more. You told me _хтјати_ is the original verb. For which language is it? Old Macedonian?
> 
> And if that is not the Old Cyrillic writing, how else would it look? Can you describe the letters or attach a photo of the entry in your etymological dictionary?
> 
> Thanks again.



Sure, no problem 

Actually, I may have expressed myself incorrectly, and I apologise-it was written in Old Church Slavonic (in Macedonian: crkoven staroslovenski). This is a link of the alphabet: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ocslavonic.htm
I wasn't able to find the actual word written in Old Slavonic on the Internet, sorry. 

In this moment I'm not at home, but when I get back, I'll check the word in the book again, and I'll tell you the exact words from the link, one by one, so you put it together by yourself


----------



## Whodunit

echo chamber said:


> Actually, I may have expressed myself incorrectly, and I apologise-it was written in Old Church Slavonic (in Macedonian: crkoven staroslovenski). This is a link of the alphabet: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ocslavonic.htm
> I wasn't able to find the actual word written in Old Slavonic on the Internet, sorry.



Sure, I knew this. Could the word be  _хотѩти_ (xtjati)? I actually thought it was _хотѣти_ (xtěti).



> In this moment I'm not at home, but when I get back, I'll check the word in the book again, and I'll tell you the exact words from the link, one by one, so you put it together by yourself



I can't wait to here from you.


----------



## Toma

Hi Whodunit,

I don't have Old-Slavic (Bulgarian) fonts, but it goes like this.
The infitive is the second one, hoteti (the e is the wide e), just as you have it in your second choice.
1 p. sg. is hoshton and so on.

\now keeping in mind that in Sanskrit the word is icchati (3 p.sg) you can start suspecting that iskam and hoxhton are related, the latter being a reduplicated form, the o grade of the reduplicative vowel for a desiderative (don't quote me on this, it has been a long time I haven't done this in earnest). I have to get home to take out my etymological dictionary to be more precise, but you can do some digging around yourself. Etymologisches Woerterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen, look for the root icch, you can also go to your library and check out the LIV, Lexicon Indogermanischen Verborum, then go to Slavic languages and look for Hoteti.

As far as Macedonian is concerned it is the same thing as shte, the only difference is that shte has been replaced by the Serbian influence on the language, all the more stronger in their desire to prove different things. 
As mentioned earlier, sakam has nothing to do with the question. The pronounciation of ke is sufficient to show that this was established after the law of palatalization velars ceased to work. 

So my suggestion is to go to the library and do your homework there.


----------



## iobyo

Toma said:


> the only difference is that shte has been replaced by the Serbian influence on the language



What Serbian influence are you talking about? Before or after WWII?


----------



## echo chamber

Toma said:


> As far as Macedonian is concerned it is the same thing as shte, the only difference is that shte has been replaced by the Serbian influence on the language, all the more stronger in their desire to prove different things.
> As mentioned earlier, sakam has nothing to do with the question...



I believe this has already been explained. You're unnecessarily repeating some things.


----------



## echo chamber

Whodunit said:


> I actually thought it was _хотѣти_ (xtěti).



Yup, that's it.  _Or, _instead of "o", the letter "jer" (both variants are given).


----------



## iobyo

Toma said:


> As far as Macedonian is concerned it is the same thing as shte, the only difference is that shte has been replaced by the Serbian influence on the language



_Ще _isn't found in any Macedonian dialects (not even any intermediary Macedonian-Bulgarian dialects) and has never been part of any Macedonian dialect. 



			
				Toma said:
			
		

> So my suggestion is to go to the library and do your homework there.



Well it's obvious you've done your homework.


----------



## Whodunit

Toma said:


> 1 p. sg. is hoshton and so on.



Thanks for your help. I've found the rest of conjugation here.



> \now keeping in mind that in Sanskrit the word is icchati (3 p.sg) you can start suspecting that iskam and hoxhton are related, the latter being a reduplicated form, the o grade of the reduplicative vowel for a desiderative (don't quote me on this, it has been a long time I haven't done this in earnest). I have to get home to take out my etymological dictionary to be more precise, but you can do some digging around yourself. Etymologisches Woerterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen, look for the root icch, you can also go to your library and check out the LIV, Lexicon Indogermanischen Verborum, then go to Slavic languages and look for Hoteti.


Sorry, I've lost you. How are _इष _(the root of _इच्छाति_) and _хотѣти_ connected? I mean the thing with reduplication might be a good starting point to link them, but where the Slavic -_т-_ come from and what does a Sanskrit initial _इ-_ correspond to in Old Church Slavonic?

Furthermore, I can't find the Sanskrit root you mentioned anywhere linked to any Slavic verb. Usually, _icchati _is linked to _искати _"to look for"_,_ see here. I can't even find the IE root for _хотѣти_.



> So my suggestion is to go to the library and do your homework there.


It's not my homework. It's what I like to do in my leisure time. And my library is my desk and the Internet. There's usually all I need, including y'all guys. 



echo chamber said:


> Yup, that's it.  _Or, _instead of "o", the letter "jer" (both variants are given).



Thanks.  But I still don't understand what the letter "jer" is supposed to look like. Here are some variants:
_
хот*ъ*ти_ (with jerŭ)
_хот*ы*ти_ (with jery)_
хот*ь*ти _(with jerĭ)

These letters can all be found in modern Cyrillic alphabets. A letter called "jer" didn't exist.


----------



## Kanes

искаt is "they want" not 'to look for", don't know where you came with to look for. It has the same root as the Sanscrit one.


----------



## Whodunit

Kanes said:


> искаt is "they want" not 'to look for", don't know where you came with to look for. It has the same root as the Sanscrit one.



I don't know which language you're talking about, but my mentioning _искать_ referred to Russian. It might be different in Macedonian. For Bulgarian, it is _искам_. The etymology can be found here, as I already said. If THIS word has the same root as the Sanskrit one, this statement must be wrong then:



Toma said:


> As mentioned earlier, sakam has nothing to do with the question. The pronounciation of ke is sufficient to show that this was established after the law of palatalization velars ceased to work.



Or did I misunderstand something there?


----------



## Kanes

I'm refering to Bulgarian, искат is the 3th person.

искам = I want
искат = they want

Cакам really have nothing to do with the question, it is a dialectual form of искам. The vowel moved behind the c, there are many cases of this not only in the macedonian dialect.


----------



## Whodunit

Kanes said:


> Cакам really have nothing to do with the question, it is a dialectual form of искам. The vowel moved behind the c, there are many cases of this not only in the macedonian dialect.



Fine, so _искам _doesn't have the same Sanskrit root either.

Anyway, I don't understand your argumentation. If you want to clarify it again, please do so, but it would be better to open a new thread in the etymological forum.


----------



## echo chamber

Whodunit said:


> Thanks.  But I still don't understand what the letter "jer" is supposed to look like. Here are some variants:
> _
> хот*ъ*ти_ (with jerŭ)
> _хот*ы*ти_ (with jery)_
> хот*ь*ти _(with jerĭ)
> 
> These letters can all be found in modern Cyrillic alphabets. A letter called "jer" didn't exist.



Oh, I'm sorry, I was referring to *jerŭ*.

So the Macedonian Old Church Slavonic verb is: * хътѣ*_*ти* _(or хотѣти).
Finally, this is solved. =)
So it seems like _sakam _or any other verb from modern Macedonian language has nothing to do with the origin of "ќе".  =)


----------



## iobyo

> Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск. хотѣти, хътѣти, ст.-слав. хотѣти, хоштѫ и хътѣти (др.-греч. θέλειν, βούλεσθαι). Ср.: укр. хотíти, хо́чу, болг. ща (из *хъштѫ), сербохорв. хо̀тjети, хо̏ħу, ħу, словенск. hotė́ti, hȯ́čem, др.-чешск. chtieti, сhсu, чешск. chtít, сhсi, словацк. сhс(i)еt᾽, польск. сhсiеć, сhсę, в.-луж. сhсус́, сhсu, нж.-луж. kśeś, соm. Праслав., по-видимому, *хъtěti, *хoti̯ǫ, которое сближают ввиду польск. chęć «желание, охота», чешск. сhuť ж. «охота, аппетит» нередко с арм. хаnd «неукротимое желание», хind «радость», хndаm «радуюсь», далее — с кимр. chwant, брет. hоаnt «desiderium».



From the Russian Wiktionary entry on _хотеть_.


----------



## Whodunit

iobyo said:


> From the Russian Wiktionary entry on _хотеть_.



And what does that prove? 

By the way, this explanation might be of your interest and it says that _इच्छाति_ has nothing to do with _хотѣти_.


----------

