# "To sit" in French: words (verbs) lacking?



## ThomasK

What I like about languages is that they surprise me. And keep surprising me. Simply because I harbour illusions, have too simple a worldview, have presuppositions/.... with regard to languages. 

So for instance: French (nor Italian, nor Spanish, I think) has no verb like sitting. être assis, oui, but not sitting as an activity. I wonder how linguists deal with something like that. I suppose the term "lack" is already based on assumptions with regard to universality of language. what is the best "objective" description of this observation. 

There is no 1-to-1 translation for "to sit"? You cannot sit in French? ;-)


----------



## Swatters

It's just s'asseoir, sedersi and sentarse in French, Italian and Spanish. They can all be used non-reflexively if you sit someone down.

There's no gap that I can see here.


----------



## ThomasK

I think there is. But think of this: I sit on a chair/ Je suis assis sur la chaise. I quite agree that the meaning is about the same, but not perfectly, I think. Ours looks like an action or activity but the French "paraphrase" seems more a situation (not sure whether those are the right terms).


----------



## pollohispanizado

What about_ je m'assois sur la chaise_...? S'asseoir is a full verb with two forms/roots in most tenses. (_assois/assieds_)

Sit down = assoyez-vous/asseyez-vous.
You sit down = vous vous assoyez/asseyez.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Could you not interpret "Je suis assis" as the rather sub-standard (but rapidly growing form in English) "I am sat" ( = state not action)? Similarly, the sub-standard past, "I was sat on the chair", is also gaining ground in English.

In passing, in my own language of Welsh, we say "eistedd" for ("sitting" - and where appropriate it translates as "to sit", although we don't really have infinitives.) I bring this up, because often people (learners and native speakers alike) use "eistedd i lawr" as a word for word expression from English "to sit/sitting down." Whereas, traditional, correct Welsh insists of the deletion of "i lawr" ( < 'to the floor' = 'down') as the verbal noun already has the idea of 'movement downwards' embedded in it. I mean, what else are you going to do but sit *down*? (not up, or sideways …)


----------



## pollohispanizado

Welsh_Sion said:


> Could you not interpret "Je suis assis" as the rather sub-standard (but rapidly growing form in English) "I am sat" ( = state not action)? Similarly, the sub-standard past, "I was sat on the chair", is also gaining ground in English.
> 
> In passing, in my own language of Welsh, we say "eistedd" for ("sitting" - and where appropriate it translates as "to sit", although we don't really have infinitives.) I bring this up, because often people (learners and native speakers alike) use "eistedd i lawr" as a word for word expression from English "to sit/sitting down." Whereas, traditional, correct Welsh insists of the deletion of "i lawr" ( < 'to the floor' = 'down') as the verbal noun already has the idea of 'movement downwards' embedded in it. I mean, what else are you going to do but sit *down*? (not up, or sideways …)


It's interesting how the phrasal verb is interpretted. It is more about tellicity than direction usually (sit down ≈ complete the action of taking a seat).


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Well … for what it's worth, Welsh tends to eschew phrasal verbs (or verbs with particules - not necessarily the same thing).  It's only under the continuous influence of English that often verbal nouns 'attract' particles/adverbials etc., and become slavish imitations of English forms. Given time, I'm sure many of these will embed (for good, for ill) in the language, going forward.


----------



## Oddmania

I'm not sure I really understand what verb or concept is supposed to be missing in French.

"Je suis assis" = _I'm sitting _(OR _I'm sat_ in British English) *[STATE]*​"Je m'assois" = _I'm sitting down_ *[ACTION]*​​I don't think French lacks any particular verb. It's just that English speakers consider that when you're bending your knees, you're in the middle of *sitting down*; and after you've sat down, you're *sitting*. In French, first you perform an action (expressed with a verb), then you end up in a sitting position (expressed with an adjective). 

Likewise, when someone is _standing_, we describe this with an adjective ("debout"). We only use a verb to describe the action of standing up.

What I would agree is confusing in French, is the way we use the verb _mourir _("to die"). "ll est mort" translates both as "_He is dead_" and "_He (has) died_". That's because the verb _mourir _takes the auxiliary _être _in the Passé Composé tense, and the past participle _mort _happens to be the same as the adjective _mort_.
​


----------



## pollohispanizado

Welsh_Sion said:


> Well … for what it's worth, Welsh tends to eschew phrasal verbs (or verbs with particules - not necessarily the same thing).  It's only under the continuous influence of English that often verbal nouns 'attract' particles/adverbials etc., and become slavish imitations of English forms. Given time, I'm sure many of these will embed (for good, for ill) in the language, going forward.


I didn't figure Welsh would have them; I just find the interpretation interesting, especially since I'm sure there's a native way of expressing the same.



Oddmania said:


> I'm not sure I really understand what verb or concept is supposed to be missing in French.


Me neither. Even if this verb were missing (which it isn't) it wouldn't mean that it would be impossible to express the same thing. Find a language that is way different than French and English and you'll find that they can say the same thing, even if you can't translate the words 1:1.


----------



## ThomasK

Please do not worry: "lacking" might be the wrong term. 

But are you sure that those are equivalent? In my view they are not. Or maybe the meaning of for example "sitting down" is ambiguous in English. (Any native speakers around English) I agree it is an action in French, but I think (thought???) "I am sitting down" is not an action. "Do sit down" might be an invitation to the action meant. Am I right??? --- I am sitting is considered some kind of activity in Dutch, English and German (though we may not be moving, whereas indeed you are sayijng: I am in a sit- situation. ;-) It is subtle, I know.


----------



## symposium

In Italian we do have the verb "sedere" = "to sit": "sedeva silenziosa" = "she sat /was sitting quietly". We also have the reflexive form "sedersi ( = s'asseoir/sentarse)" = "to sit down".


----------



## pollohispanizado

You question doesn't make a lot sense. The same things are said basically the same way in French and in English. 

I am sitting. Je suis assis.
I sit. Je m'assois.

If the fact that in English we use the gerund "sitting" while in French we use the participle  "assis(e)", it's just a grammatical difference: both are semantically saying the exact same thing and expressing the exact same action. Looking for some crumb of difference in meaning based solely on this difference is a little pointless.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, thanks a lot... "Just a grammatical difference"? Present participle vs. past participle about the same??? Pragmatically, in this case, maybe. I just said at the beginning that I realize it might be about subtleties, etc. I am mainly asking questions, expressing suppositions - while clearly suggesting that I might be mistaken. So do not feel obliged to answer if this "does not make a lot of sense".



symposium said:


> In Italian we do have the verb "sedere" = "to sit": "sedeva silenziosa" = "she sat /was sitting quietly". We also have the reflexive form "sedersi ( = s'asseoir/sentarse)" = "to sit down".


 OK, that makes things different. I was not aware of the existence of "sedere"? Thanks.


----------



## Penyafort

ThomasK said:


> think of this: I sit on a chair/ Je suis assis sur la chaise.



I see what you mean and I also understand that sense of "lacking", because the same happens to me when translating mentally from Catalan to Spanish. In Catalan, we have *seure *"be sitting", *asseure *"sit somebody down" and _*asseure's*_ "sit down", but in Spanish, as in French, for the first one "estar sentado" is used.

So a sentence like the one you mention in French would be _Estoy sentado en una silla_ in Spanish too, while in Catalan would be _Sec a una cadira _(although, in all fairness, _Estic assegut a una cadira_ is also possible and many would say it so, either because of Spanish influence or for a preference for longer clearer structures).


----------



## berndf

Oddmania said:


> I'm not sure I really understand what verb or concept is supposed to be missing in French.
> 
> "Je suis assis" = _I'm sitting _(OR _I'm sat_ in British English) *[STATE]*"Je m'assois" = _I'm sitting down_ *[ACTION]*I don't think French lacks any particular verb.


The issue is not that the language would be missing anything. The issue is that french has only an adjective (=_sitting_) and, hence, expresses the concept by copula+adjective rather than having a separate verb as most other European languages have.


----------



## berndf

pollohispanizado said:


> You question doesn't make a lot sense. The same things are said basically the same way in French and in English.
> 
> I am sitting. Je suis assis.
> I sit. Je m'assois.


That makes it look analogous but the comparison is in truth quite distorting. _Je suis assis_ has no progressive aspect but is simple present and_ je m'assois_ is _I sit down _and not _I sit_. The difference between _I sit_ and_ I am sitting_ is aspect (habitual vs. progressive) while the difference between _Je suis assis_ and_ Je m'assois_ is state vs. action.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> expresses the concept by copula+adjective rather than having a separate verb


 So what?  


berndf said:


> _Je suis assis_ has no progressive aspect


 “I am sitting” is not progressive unless you are referring to the actual process of sitting down.  Otherwise, it describes a state: “I am [sitting]” and not “I [am sitting]”. 


berndf said:


> _je m'assois_ is _I sit down _and not _I sit_.


 No, “I sit” is valid for that meaning as well. 


berndf said:


> The difference between _I sit_ and_ I am sitting_ is aspect (habitual vs. progressive) while the difference between _Je suis assis_ and_ Je m'assois_ is state vs. action.


 The difference between the former can definitely be state vs. action.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> berndf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between *I sit and*_* I am sitting*_ is aspect (habitual vs. progressive) while the difference between _Je suis assis_ and_ Je m'assois_ is state vs. action.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between the former can definitely be *state vs. action*.
Click to expand...

I hope you mean *action vs. state*. Otherwise I would be completely lost as to what you wanted to say. if you do, you are probably right. Both English sentences can be interpreted in two ways. In French this is different, _s'assoir _is only an action verb and a state verb doesn't exist. The reason for this is that the direct etymological descendant of Latin _sedere_ (with both meanings,_ sit_ and _sit down_), French _seoir_, underwent a shift in meaning in the early 2nd millennium. It retained the action verb meaning of _sit down_ much later but lost the state verb meaning during the Old French period.



elroy said:


> berndf said:
> 
> 
> 
> expresses the concept by copula+adjective rather than having a separate verb
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...

So what what?  It happens to be the topic of the thread.


----------



## ThomasK

0. This is not meant to be judgmental. The word "lack" might suggest that but it is meant in a descriptive sense... ;-)

1. The main question as for me is: does the grammatical difference create some kind of *semantic difference, a nuance*? 
1.1 Is it a matter of aspect? I am not so sure… 
1.2 I am quite sure one cannot say that the French "miss" sitting, that some "lack" is felt/experienced, but I am just wondering about the subtleties, which now seem to be turning up even in English (_sit/ am sitting_). 
_[Just BTW: I'd be surprised as well if "I sit" can mean "je m'asseois"... ]_

2. The other thing is: sitting is not considered an *activity *as such, I think, in French. Nor is standing, as a matter of fact: I am not sure of how one could say "he is standing there". Not_ il est debout_ for sure. _Il est là_, I suppose, but... 

Those are of course the pecularities of languages. I remember the distinction between satellite and verb-focused languages: _he is dancing into the room_ (satellite) vs. _il entre en dansant _(verb focus).


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> The other thing is: sitting is not considered an *activity *as such, I think, in French. Nor is standing, as a matter of fact


I am not sure this is so. French lost the meaning of the state verb sit due to a semantic shift of _seoir_ and the descendant of Latin _stare_ merged into _être_ (the direct descendant, _ester_, exists as well but in a very specialized meaning) and the French probably simply didn't feel the need to replace them as both concepts can be expressed as copula+adjective.


----------



## ThomasK

Interesting information. I do not blame them, you know, ;-), and indeed, "pragmatically" [_I hope that that is the right word here_] the different grammatical forms express the same concept, basically. But I think my example (_They are standing over there_) shows that it might be impossible to render that precise meaning in French but … 
@Yendred: how would you translate that sentence?


----------



## Yendred

ThomasK said:


> @Yendred: how would you translate that sentence?



_to sit _(as an activity) _= s'asseoir_ [s‿aswaʁ], as mentioned by Swatters

Which sentence do you want me to translate? _They are standing over there_?
All depends on the context, but I would say something like _Ils sont là-bas / Ils se trouvent là-bas

I sit on a chair _can mean two things in English, if I'm not wrong:

I was standing, and I put my bottom on the chair (action) _ Je m'asseois _[m‿aswa] _sur une chaise_
I am currently sitting on a chair (state) _ Je suis assis _[sɥiz‿asi] _sur une chaise_


----------



## ThomasK

I beg to disagree: "to sit *down*" is "s'asseoir", the activity. But just sitting: "être assis". Think of: he has been sitting there for some time now… I suppose you will not focus on the sitting when you translate as in the sentence you have just translated (thanks!). That is the difference, I suppose, between various lexicons and maybe worldviews: see #19, last line.

Voilà, c'est ce que je pensais. So it is quite hard to express that standing aspect [aspect in a non-grammatical meaning].


----------



## Yendred

ThomasK said:


> Voilà, c'est ce que je pensais. So it is quite hard to express that standing aspect [aspect in a non-grammatical meaning].



If you want to insist on the standing aspect, you can say _Ils sont debout là-bas_, to denote the fact that they are not sitting.


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> I beg to disagree: "to sit *down*" is "s'asseoir", the activity. But just sitting: "être assis".


No, @elroy is right. You can use _sit_ on its own also in the sense of _sit down_.


----------



## Yendred

ThomasK said:


> Think of: he has been sitting there for some time now… I suppose you will not focus on the sitting when you translate



_He has been *sitting *there for some time now __ Il est assis là depuis un moment
He has been *standing *there for some time now __ Il est là depuis un moment_, or again if you want to insist on the standing position _Il est là debout depuis un moment_, but in French the "default" position is considered to be standing.


----------



## Ben Jamin

It's surprising that nobody has yet mentioned that French also lacks a verb meaning "to stand".
Another curiosity is that the native French speakers quite vehemently argued that "s'asseoir" mean the same as "to sit", not seeing the difference.


----------



## Yendred

Ben Jamin said:


> It's surprising that nobody has yet mentioned that French also lacks a verb meaning "to stand".



_to stand (up) _(action)  _se lever
to stand _(state)  _être debout_



Ben Jamin said:


> Another curiosity is that the native French speakers quite vehemently argued that "s'asseoir" mean the same as "to sit", not seeing the difference.



As said before, "_to sit_" can both mean _s'asseoir _or _être assis_, so it's not French which lacks a nuance, but English...


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> It's surprising that nobody has yet mentioned that French also lacks a verb meaning "to stand".


See #19 and #20.


----------



## ThomasK

I think we have arrived at the point where we notice that languages have their own foci, which cannot always be rendered very easily. I have not read Murakami, but I wonder what I miss if only I could compare the Original with the translation.


----------



## Oddmania

ThomasK said:


> I am not sure of how one could say "he is standing there". Not_ il est debout_ for sure. _Il est là_, I suppose, but...


_Il est là, debout_.

To my mind, using an adjective to describe a position makes a lot more sense. In English, you would say "He was looking out the window, *sitting *on the desk" (although I think you might use _seated_, an adjective (hooray!) just as well), and yet you would say "..._settled _in the armcair / _slumped _on couch / _slouched _on his chair, etc.", so I don't really understand why _sitting _has a different format.

"Settl*ing* into the armchair" would mean the person is still in the middle of doing the action. After the action is done, he "is settl*ed* in the armchair". We use the exact same syntax in French with _s'asseoir / être assis_.

PS:  How would you say "*Il est avachi*" in English (or in other languages)? This means he is _sitting _in a _slouched _position. We only use one adjective to express that in French.

• _He is slouching while sitting_ ?  Using two verbs sound very wordy and overly descriptive to me.​• _He is sitting slouched_ ? This sounds right to me, but notice that "slouched" is being used as an adjective (because, well, adjectives are convenient to describe positions after all).​• _Something else_?​


----------



## Welsh_Sion

PS:  How would you say "*Il est avachi*" in English (or in other languages)? This means he is _sitting _in a _slouched _position. We only use one adjective to express that in French.

__________

From our Geiriadur yr Academi 'slouch':

eistedd = sitting (verbal-noun)
yn = PREDICATE
un = a/one
swp = a batch (n.m.), a parcel (n.m.)

_______

eistedd = sitting (verbal-noun)
yn = PREDICATE
swpyn = a little batch (n.m.), a small parcel (n.m.)
llipa = flabby, limp, slouching (all adjs.)
(mewn = in (+ indefinite object)
cadair = chair (n.f.))



slouch2v.i. & t

[-]​.      1.v.i. gwargrymu, gwn|eud gwar; *to ~ (in a chair)*, eistedd yn un swp, eistedd yn swpyn/llipa (mewn cadair);​


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> I hope you mean *action vs. state*.


 Yes, that’s what I meant. 


berndf said:


> So what what?


 I mean why is this worth discussing.  Not all languages have the same inventory of verbs.  Imagine starting a thread about each case in which one language has a verb and another expresses the meaning using a different structure.


----------



## ThomasK

Oddmania said:


> _Il est là, debout_.
> 
> To my mind, using an adjective to describe a position makes a lot more sense. In English, you would say "He was looking out the window, *sitting *on the desk" (although I think you might use _seated_, an adjective (hooray!) just as well), and yet you would say "..._settled _in the armcair / _slumped _on couch / _slouched _on his chair, etc.", so I don't really understand why _sitting _has a different format.
> "Settl*ing* into the armchair" would mean the person is still in the middle of doing the action. After the action is done, he "is settl*ed* in the armchair". We use the exact same syntax in French with _s'asseoir / être assis_.


Please do not think this is (meant as) a matter of right or wrong, etc.!
There might be an interesting variation between present and past participle. English has "be seated" as well, but referring to the purpose, a formal way of saying: "(please) sit down". But "sitting" and "assis" refer to the very essence of the issue at stake here. Pragmatically there is no difference, but I think it is a way of viewing: you seem to view it as the result of an action, a "lasting" result or something, whereas English (Dutch, German) would view the sitting as an activity going on... In Dutch both "gezeten" (PastP) and "zittend" (PresentP) would be OK here by the way. But "hij is gezeten" would sound very odd. Maybe it is a calque from French.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I mean why is this worth discussing.


I think so, yes. It used to puzzle me and led me to researching the history of the reflexes of _stare_ and _sedere_ in French. And I found that very interesting. Behind many peculiarities a language has in relation to its close neighbours, there are interesting stories to discover.


----------



## se16teddy

Oddmania said:


> To my mind, using an adjective to describe a position makes a lot more sense


I am only a beginner in Irish; but early in your study of Irish you are introduced to a string of forms that suggest that Irish tries to keep verbs for actions, and prefers to use other forms (such as verbal nouns) to indicate categories of inaction.
Táim i mo sheasamh / shuí / luí / chodladh / dhúiseacht / chonaí / thost
Literally: I am in my standing / sitting / lying / sleeping / wakefulness / dwelling / silent (state)
Meaning: I am standing / sitting / lying / sleeping / awake / dwelling / not speaking.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

se16teddy,

Irish of course mirrors what happens in the other Celtic languages of course - including my own  of Cymraeg/Welsh.

For non-linguists I 'translate' the 'in' you refer to in your post as 'in-the-state-of', whereas it is in fact a predicate before, in this case, the verbal-noun. I don't know Irish sufficiently (and am lazy to check the reference books), but in a Welsh context the subsequent verbal-noun does not softly mutate after that 'in' ( =* 'yn', *often elided to *''n'*), whereas a following noun or adjective (often creating an adverbial, so* 'yn' *could be interpreted as English '-ly') does.

*Dw i'n eistedd*
Am I in-the-state-of sitting
I am sitting

*Wyt ti'n ddel (< del)*
Art thou in-the-state-of SM pretty
You're pretty

*Mae hi'n eistedd yn dawel (< tawel)*
Is she in-the-state-of sitting in-the-state-of SM quiet
She's sitting quietly


----------



## Penyafort

Ben Jamin said:


> It's surprising that nobody has yet mentioned that French also lacks a verb meaning "to stand".



All Romance languages do. In Catalan we would say _*estar dret*_. In Spanish, *estar de pie*.

But I've always thought that the emphasis of English on the verbs 'stand' and 'lie' are due to the fact of English lacking two verbs for "to be", as there are in most Romance languages. (A verb for 'to lie' exists in the Romance languages, but most have a tendency to prefer the construction "to be lying", parallel to "to be standing". They're simply seen as specifications to the general situational form of "to be", which is generally understood by context)


----------



## ThomasK

But French only has one, doesn't it?


----------



## Penyafort

ThomasK said:


> But French only has one, doesn't it?



That's why I said _most Romance languages. _

Apparently Old French decided to merge the old _estre _and _ester_ into one at some point.


----------



## berndf

Penyafort said:


> Apparently Old French decided to merge the old _estre _and _ester_ into one at some point.


... Like English. In both languages, a verb meaning _remain _merged into past tense/participle forms of a verb meaning _be_. Having 'two verbs for "to be"' is a peculiarity of Ibero-Romance languages and is not a general feature of Romance.


----------



## merquiades

I sit (down) = je m'assieds
I stand (up) = je me lève
Sit down!  Stand up!  = Assieds-toi/ Lève-toi!
Do sit down / stand up =  Veuillez vous asseoir / Veuillez vous lever
The prepositions are not necessary

I am sitting (down) = I am seated = Je suis assis.   The meaning is the same.
I sat for hours = je suis resté assis pendant des heures
I am standing (up) = je suis debout
I stood for hours = je suis resté debout pendant des heures

I don't see any sense lacking.  You just use different adjectives/verbs


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> You just use different adjectives/verbs


Yes, that is what this thread is about. It has been explained many times now. French has no verb for expressing the state of sitting but rather uses a copula verb plus an adjective. Nobody has said that French was lacking the ability to express anything.


----------



## ThomasK

The only thing I could ask more is: where do I find issues of this kind (apparent semantic gaps) treated? See also the thread on tavola, etc. 
In semasiology? Can anyone refer to sites treating such topics?


----------



## bearded

Just a marginal remark:


Oddmania said:


> we describe this with an adjective ("debout")


I think 'debout' is rather an adverb.


----------



## berndf

_Debout _can act as an adverb and as an (invariable) adjective but in_ être debout _it is a predicative adjective.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> in_ être debout _it is a predicative adjective.


According to 'Dictionnaire Larousse' _debout _is an adverb in any case.
 debout - Dictionnaire français-anglais Larousse


----------



## Yendred

bearded said:


> According to 'Dictionnaire Larousse' _debout _is an adverb in any case.



Yes, grammatically an _adverb_ qualifies a verb (or an adjective), while an _adjective_ qualifies a noun.
In "_être debout"_, _debout_ qualifies _être_, so it's an adverb.


----------



## berndf

Yendred said:


> Yes, grammatically an _adverb_ qualifies a verb (or an adjective), while an _adjective_ qualifies a noun.
> In "_être debout"_, _debout_ qualifies _être_, so it's an adverb.


Yes, and that why it functions as a predicative adjective here, because it qualifies the subject with _être_ as copula verb (compare: _il est grand ~ il est debout_). As a word class it is of course an adverb.

DEBOUT, adv. et adj. invar.


----------



## JClaudeK

ThomasK said:


> 1.2 I am quite sure one cannot say that the French "miss" sitting, that some "lack" is felt/experienced


This "lack" becomes obvious when French pupils must make the difference between
"er sitzt, saß" = il est/ était assis"
and
"er setzt sich/ setzte sich" = il s'assoit/ s'assit; s'assoyais; (il s'est assis)".

It's very difficult for them to understand why "il est assis" has to be translated by the present tense "er sitzt".


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> that why it functions as a predicative adjective here


The terme "predicative adjective" doesn't exist in French.
This form is called "Attribut":


> Un *attribut* est un groupe nominal ou un adjectif qui sert à donner une caractéristique à un sujet ou à un complément d'objet direct par l’intermédiaire d’un verbe.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> because it qualifies the subject with _être_ as copula verb (compare: _il est grand ~ il est debout_).


For me, that comparison is not correct, because also adverb(ial)s can appear after the copula verb: _en ce moment, il est à la gare/il est de bonne humeur._



Yendred said:


> In "_être debout"_, _debout_ qualifies _être_, so it's an adverb.


----------



## berndf

Yendred said:


> In "_être debout"_, _debout_ qualifies _être_, so it's an adverb.


With that logic you would have to say _il est *assisement_ instead of _il est assis_. No, _debout_ qualifies _il_ and not _être_.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> With that logic you would have to say _il est *assisement_ instead of _il est assis_. No, debout qualifies _il_ and not _être_.


But I could say ''il est en position assise'' - and don't forget ''il est bien''.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> and don't forget ''il est bien''.


In what sense? I wouldn't know what this should mean. I know_ il va bien_ and_ il est bien <adjective>_.


----------



## bearded

Ok, you are right about 'bien', which can be an invariable adjective.
But please consider one of the examples by Larousse under ''Debout: adverb'' :
''Il était debout sur la table''
Traduction : debout - Dictionnaire français-anglais Larousse
As concerns the French language, Larousse is not exactly a random passer-by..


----------



## Penyafort

berndf said:


> Having 'two verbs for "to be"' is a peculiarity of Ibero-Romance languages and is not a general feature of Romance.



But the peculiarity of ESTARE in the Ibero-Romance languages is due to their extensive use as a situational verb. Because in Catalan and Italian, the verb exists too.

_Catalan:    Estic bé / Estic malament_​_Italian:    Sto bene / Sto male_​​_Catalan:    Estem menjant la paella._​_Italian:    Stiamo mangiando la pizza._​​_Catalan: Ara vull estar sol._​_Italian: Ora voglio stare solo._​



berndf said:


> Yes, and that why it functions as a predicative adjective here, because it qualifies the subject with _être_ as copula verb (compare: _il est grand ~ il est debout_). As a word class it is of course an adverb.
> 
> DEBOUT, adv. et adj. invar.



I wonder how many French speakers would see _debout _as an adjective, even if invariable, to be honest.

The thing is, generally speaking, in the Romance languages predicative adjectives are those which are not seen as attributes but affect the subject and verb at the same time. And in order for this to happen, they cannot be invariable.

For instance, to stand in Catalan can be said in two ways:

*estar dret*​*estar dempeus*​​In the first, _dret _changes to _dreta _if the subject is feminine, or to _drets/dretes _if in the plural. So it's seen as a predicative adjective (_complement predicatiu_). In the second sentence, _dempeus _wouldn't change at all, it's invariable, literally meaning 'on foot'. And it's therefore considered an adverb, functioning as an adverbial of manner (_complement circumstancial de manera_). The way I see it, _debout _is an equivalent to my _dempeus_.


----------



## berndf

Penyafort said:


> But the peculiarity of ESTARE in the Ibero-Romance languages is due to their extensive use as a situational verb. Because in Catalan and Italian, the verb exists too.
> 
> _Catalan: Estic bé / Estic malamentItalian: Sto bene / Sto maleCatalan: Estem menjant la paella.Italian: Stiamo mangiando la pizza.Catalan: Ara vull estar sol.Italian: Ora voglio stare solo._


In Iberian-Romance languages and in French it is not quite the same. Italian _stare_ does not compete with essere in the same way as in Iberian-Romance languages. It means _stay, remain_. The only overlap with English _be_ I know is as the auxiliary of the progressive aspect. But that is a different matter. In _Voglio stare solo_ it is a bit in between _I want to stay alone_ and _I want to be alone_. Both translations would be possible.


----------



## bearded

Penyafort said:


> The way I see it, _debout _is an equivalent to my _dempeus_.


  
In Italian: ''in piedi'' (_stare in piedi_).


----------



## Swatters

_Debout_ has clear adjectival uses anyway: "vous les aurez vues voilées et dévoilées, _*debout et assises*_, chantantes et silencieuses", "s'il y a encore *quelqu'un de debout* à la fin de la chanson c'est qu'il a triché", "dans la mesure où on m'a toujours vue très vive, très solide, _*très debout*_".

The TLFi has a bit about its classification in its _debout _article:



> *Rem.*Les dict. gén. du XIXe et du XXe s. rangent habituellement _debout_ dans la catégorie des adv. Qq. dict. récents (p. ex. Dub., Davau-Cohen 1972) donnent cependant _debout_ comme ,,adv. ou adj. invar.``, mais sans autre précision d'emploi dans le corps de l'article; seul _Lar. Lang. fr._ ouvre un paragraphe distinct pour l'emploi adj. Du côté des grammairiens, certains continuent d'affirmer que _debout_ est ,,toujours invariable, car il s'agit d'un adverbe`` (Colin 1971). Mais la plupart indiquent l'adjectivation de _debout _comme un fait d'usage courant; avec _bien,_ il s'agirait de l'adv. qui est le plus sujet à la dérivation impropre. La docum. atteste de fréq. emplois de _debout_ comme attribut, épithète, appos. du sujet ou du compl. d'obj. dir.; dans tous ces cas, le critère de commutation avec un adj. est probant. D'autre part, même s'il est rare, l'emploi de _debout_ avec la marque du plur. et l'emploi comme subst. (qui semble un fait plus récent) confirment que l'adjectivation de cet adv. est bien établie.


----------



## ThomasK

JClaudeK said:


> It's very difficult for them to understand why "il est assis" has to be translated by the present tense "er sitzt".


Aha, that is quite interesting!!! That is what I thought, that is almost my starting-point, which I now find confirmed, or so it seems at least...


----------



## merquiades

JClaudeK said:


> This "lack" becomes obvious when French pupils must make the difference between
> "er sitzt, saß" = il est/ était assis"
> and
> "er setzt sich/ setzte sich" = il s'assoit/ s'assit; s'assoyais; (il s'est assis)".
> 
> It's very difficult for them to understand why "il est assis" has to be translated by the present tense "er sitzt".


So there are two different verbs in German? _ Sitzen_ is to be seated and_ Setzen _is to sit down?
I must have always said it wrong then:  _ich sitze mich_.

_Debout_ is just a prepostional phrase that has taken on a adverbial sense (_je dors debout_).  _Debout _modifies _dormir_.  Perhaps it ought to be written_ de bout_.


----------



## JClaudeK

merquiades said:


> So there are two different verbs in German?


Yes, there are. 



merquiades said:


> I must have always said it wrong then


 _ich sitze *setze* mich_ 

Same thing for
 stehen, stand, gestanden -  stellen, stellte, gestellt
 liegen, lag, gelegen - legen, legte, gelegt;
 hängen, hing, gehangen - hängen, hängte, gehängt.


----------



## JClaudeK

merquiades said:


> Perhaps it ought to be written_ de bout_.





> *ÉTYMOLOGIE*
> De et bout, comme le prouvent les anciens exemples : un soliveau est de bout, parce qu'il est sur le bout, et, par assimilation, un homme est de bout.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> So there are two different verbs in German? _ Sitzen_ is to be seated and_ Setzen _is to sit down?
> I must have always said it wrong then: _ich sitze mich_.


In English too, _sit_ (status verb) and set (causative of _sit_, i.e. _cause to sit_).

The difference is that English has developed a third verb: the action verb_ sit (down)_. This doesn't exist in German and German uses the reflexive causative (_sich setzen = to set oneself_) to express the concept. English has probably developed this third sense because it had lost the reflexive pronoun and with it a whole class of verbs, the reflexive verbs.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Perhaps it ought to be written_ de bout_.


Half of all French adverbs and prepositions are contracted phrases (e.g.: _dans<de intus=from inside_, _aujourd'hui=au jour d'hui_, where _hui_ is a contraction of _hodie=this day_, so the whole thing means _at the day of this day_). I don't think it would be a good idea to unravel all of them.


----------



## merquiades

JClaudeK said:


> Yes, there are.
> 
> 
> _ich sitze *setze* mich_
> 
> Same thing for
> stehen, stand, gestanden -  stellen, stellte, gestellt
> liegen, lag, gelegen - legen, legte, gelegt;
> hängen, hing, gehangen - hängen, hängte, gehängt.
> 
> View attachment 42087


Thanks for the lesson. I have to study this.  I'm going to keep this image!


berndf said:


> In English too, _sit_ (status verb) and set (causative of _sit_, i.e. _cause to sit_).
> 
> The difference is that English has developed a third verb: the action verb_ sit (down)_. This doesn't exist in German and German uses the reflexive causative (_sich setzen = to set oneself_) to express the concept. English has probably developed this third sense because it had lost the reflexive pronoun and with it a whole class of verbs, the reflexive verbs.


   I don't usually use the form "_sit_" without a preposition, though I do say "_sat_".  It would have to be a precise context like:  _She sits in the corner by the window every single day_.  I have noticed in nineteenth century British literature they use a lot he _sits_ with the meaning _he is sitting_.   _Set _is used frequently with things and also with preposition, but with people, we tend to use "_to seat_" nowadays:  _We can seat you in the corner by the window_.  Of course, this is my idiolect that I have picked up somewhere.  I surmise that the underlying problem is that the short vowel in "_sit_" is moving towards the vowel in "_set_".  My French students who expect my to speak with the French merger of _sit/seat_ often hear _set_ when I mean_ sit_. I still make the difference, maybe some people don't?, but it is narrowing.  Anyway, I think it might make people avoid using _sit _and _set_ in some contexts. My grandmother said "_set the plates on the table_", I say "_put or place_", some say "_take a seat over there_" rather than "_sit over there_".  In the end it makes native speakers confused about the usage of these verbs.


----------



## pollohispanizado

On the contrary, "set the table" and "sitting (not down)" are commonly used by me and those around me. English parallels German exactly: Sit (intrans.) / Set (inanimate; transitive/causitive) and Sit/Seat (animate [and inanimate in technical jargon]; transitive/causative).


----------



## bearded

pollohispanizado said:


> English_ parallels German exactly_: Sit (intrans.) / Set (inanimate; transitive/causitive) and Sit/Seat (animate [and inanimate in technical jargon]; transitive/causative)


...except that in German you say _Ich setze mich, _but in English you don't say _I set myself _(maybe seldom_ I seat myself._.): cf. #65.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> ...except that in German you say _Ich setze mich, _but in English you don't say _I set myself _(maybe seldom_ I seat myself._.): cf. #65.


Yes; and English does not possess the grammatical instruments to say _er setzt sich_ (French equivalent_ il s'assoit_) but only knows the equivalent of _er setzt sich selbst_ (French equivalent _il assoit lui-même_), which means something completely different. This loss of the reflexive pronoun had significant implications for the development of the English verb system. All Ingvaeonic languages had lost the reflexive pronoun. Dutch and Low German later re-borrowed it from High German (Low German even undoing the 2nd consonant shift /k/>/x/) but not English.


----------



## merquiades

I cannot fathom the difference between _ich setze mich_ and _ich sitze mich_.   Looking at JC's diagram I suppose:   I sit down (movement)/ I am sitting (no movement).


----------



## berndf

_Ich sitze mich_ is ungrammatical and semantically nonsensical. _Sitzen _exists only as an intransitive verb.


----------



## bearded

merquiades said:


> I am sitting (no movement).


 = Ich sitze (gerade).


----------



## merquiades

Ich setze mich, ich setze das baby auf den Stuhl, ich setze den Teller auf den Tisch.
Ich sitze hier drei Stunden, ich bin in der Ecke gesessen, ich sass und ich schrieb
Das ist nicht einfach.


----------



## bearded

merquiades said:


> ich bin..gesessen, ich sas


Ich habe gesessen, Ich saß.  
''Ich bin gesessen'' is mainly South-German/Austrian.


----------



## ThomasK

merquiades said:


> Ich setze mich, ich setze das baby auf den Stuhl, ich setze den Teller auf den Tisch.
> Ich sitze hier drei Stunden, ich bin in der Ecke gesessen, ich sass und ich schrieb
> Das ist nicht einfach.


 I'd like to have a German native speaker check this
-  there has been a shift from _setzen _to _stellen _(make stand) in German: _Ich stelle den Teller  auf den Tisc_h. Not sure about the baby: I wonder about _setzen _in this context.
- _ich setze mich hin_ is more idiomatic, I think
- _ich habe in der Ecke gesesse_n [bin gesessen might even not be used[


----------



## JClaudeK

ThomasK said:


> there has been a shift from _setzen _to _stellen _(make stand) in German: _Ich stelle den Teller auf den Tisc_h.


_Ich stelle den Teller auf den Tisc_h. 

But for "to put a pan/ pot on the stove (for cooking)", you can still use "setzen": "einen Topf auf den Herd setzen"




ThomasK said:


> Not sure about the baby:


_Ich setze das Baby auf den Stuhl. _




ThomasK said:


> - _ich setze mich hin_ is more idiomatic, I think


 _hin_ ersetzt die (fehlende) Ortsangabe



ThomasK said:


> - _ich habe in der Ecke gesesse_n [bin gesessen might even not be used[


- _ich habe in der Ecke gesesse_n 

But in the southern regions, we mostly say (as _bearded_ said)
- _ich bin in der Ecke gesesse_n



> Die Verben "stehen", "liegen" und "sitzen" drücken keine Bewegung aus, daher werden sie standardsprachlich mit "haben" konjugiert: Ich habe gesessen, ich habe gelegen, ich habe gestanden.
> 
> In Süddeutschland und in Österreich sagt man dennoch "Ich bin gesessen", "Ich bin gelegen" und "Ich bin gestanden".
> Zwiebelfisch


----------



## ThomasK

JClaudeK said:


> _Ich stelle den Teller auf den Tisc_h.
> But for "to put a pan on the stove (for cooking)", you can still use "setzen": "einen Topf auf den Herd setzen"
> 
> But in the southern regions, we mostly say (as _bearded_ said)
> - _ich bin in der Ecke gesesse_n


The Southern German-speaking regions remind me of Flanders: _ik ben gezeten_...

<.. off topic ..>


----------



## TitTornade

In Lorraine (NE France), I can often hear "se mettre assis" instead of "s'asseoir".
Ex : "Mets-toi assis" instead of "assieds-toi".

"Se mettre assis" seems to be the *action *counterpart of the *state *verb "être assis". But I can't really feel if "se mettre assis" corresponds to an action or to the result of this action.

Else we can obtain a *progressive *aspect for "s'asseoir" with "être en train de s'asseoir" .
And we can't obtain this *progressive *aspect for "être assis" : "être en train d'être assis"  is not possible.

_Everything_ also works with :
- "se mettre debout" / "se lever" / "être debout"
- "se mettre couché" / "se coucher" / "être couché"
- "se mettre allongé" / "s'allonger" / "être allongé"
- "se mettre accroupi" / "s'accroupir" / "être accroupir"...


----------



## JClaudeK

Apart from





TitTornade said:


> - "se mettre debout" / "se lever" / "être debout"



all the expressions ( _"se mettre assis/ couché/ allongé/ accroupi"_) must be a regional "speciality".


----------



## ThomasK

Now I am not sure you can say that one is "the action counterpart" because sitting in ENglish, German, Dutch, are considered actions, but of course no change from one position to the other like sit down. The fact that one can say: "X is sitting", is evidence to that effect, I think...


----------



## TitTornade

JClaudeK said:


> Apart from
> 
> all the expressions ( _"se mettre assis/ couché/ allongé/ accroupi"_) must be a regional "speciality".



They are certainly... I only hear them in Lorraine. But they are another example of expressing "to sit", etc.



ThomasK said:


> Now I am not sure you can say that one is "the action counterpart" because sitting in ENglish, German, Dutch, are considered actions, but of course no change from one position to the other like sit down. The fact that one can say: "X is sitting", is evidence to that effect, I think...



Do you mean that "X is sitting" is an *action *?
I now understand why it is difficult for me to express "s'asseoir" / "être assis" in English. I thought there was a lack in English  that's why I began to read this thread .
German "setzen"/"sitzen" is clearer for me.


----------



## ThomasK

I think indeed that you can call it an action. But have a look at previous contributions and you will see that has been discussed, or so I believe at least...


----------



## Swatters

I almost only hear it with debout and couché, but those "se mettre+state" expressions exist in Belgium too


----------



## merquiades

TitTornade said:


> Do you mean that "X is sitting" is an *action *?
> I now understand why it is difficult for me to express "s'asseoir" / "être assis" in English. I thought there was a lack in English  that's why I began to read this thread .
> German "setzen"/"sitzen" is clearer for me.


Well, no.   _John is sitting in the corner_ expresses no action at all.    Il est assis au coin.
_John sat down in the corner_.    That expresses action.   Il s'est assis.
John sat down and now he is sitting.

German is a blur to me.


----------



## bearded

merquiades said:


> German is a blur to me


Actually, it is not that complicated:
He is sitting/il est assis : _er sitzt,_
He sat down/il s'est assis: _er setzte sich _or_ er hat sich gesetzt._


----------



## merquiades

bearded said:


> Actually, it is not that complicated:
> He is sitting/il est assis : _er sitzt,_
> He sat down/il s'est assis: _er setzte sich _or_ er hat sich gesetzt._


And _er ist gesessen_ - what exactly does that mean?


----------



## bearded

merquiades said:


> And _er ist gesessen_ - what exactly does that mean?


It should be _er hat gesessen_ = il a été assis ou il est resté assis (perfect tense of _sitzen_).
(( 'sitzen' sometimes means 'to be in jail' ))


----------



## Piotr_WRF

merquiades said:


> And _er ist gesessen_ - what exactly does that mean?





bearded said:


> It should be _er hat gesessen_ = il a été assis [...]


_Ist gesessen_ instead of _hat gesessen_ is southern German.


----------



## OBrasilo

berndf said:
			
		

> Having 'two verbs for "to be"' is a peculiarity of Ibero-Romance languages and is not a general feature of Romance.


It also existed in Old French (estre vs. easter), and it also exists in Italian (essere vs. stare). Not sure about Romanian, though.



> In Iberian-Romance languages and in French it is not quite the same. Italian _stare_ does not compete with essere in the same way as in Iberian-Romance languages. It means _stay, remain_. The only overlap with English _be_ I know is as the auxiliary of the progressive aspect. But that is a different matter. In _Voglio stare solo_ it is a bit in between _I want to stay alone_ and _I want to be alone_. Both translations would be possible.


In Italian, _I want to stay alone is Voglio restare da solo_ or _Voglio rimanere da solo_, I've never seen _stare_ used in that context. And _stare_ has also completely replaced _essere_ in the past participle - it's always _sono stato_, _*sono essuto_ does not exist. Though, it is also true that it varies from dialect to dialect. In the Lazio dialects, _sto_ is used in quite a few cases where _sono_ is used in standard Italian, for example.


----------



## bearded

Piotr_WRF said:


> _Ist gesessen_ instead of _hat gesessen_ is southern German.


Exactly! Cf. #75 above.


----------



## Olaszinhok

OBrasilo said:


> In Italian, _I want to stay alone is Voglio restare da solo_ or _Voglio rimanere da solo_, I've never seen _stare_ used in that context



Not only is it common usage to say _stare_ in the examples above,  but it is also absolutely correct. We can also use the pronominal verb _starsene_: _me ne sto  (da) solo_


----------

