# to be right: "to be" instead of "to have" in English



## brian

Hi folks,

English uses the verb _to be_ to say _to be right_, instead of the verb _to have_, which many other languages employ instead (Sp. _tener razón_, It. _avere ragione_, Ger. _Recht haben_, etc.). What's great about being able to "have" right is that it means you can also "give" right to someone, in the sense of admitting/agreeing that someone is right. Examples:

German: _jemandem Recht geben_
French: _donner raison à quelqu'un_
Italian: _dare ragione a qualcuno_

In English, unfortunately (imho), we can't "give" someone "right." I apologize in advance if this is considered multiple questions, but:

1) was there ever a time in (old) English when _to have_ (_habban_) was used instead of _to be_ in the expression _to be right_? If so, when and why did it change?

2) if there was a time when _to have_ (_habban_) was used, was _to give_ (_giefan_) also used to "give right" to someone?

Thanks in advance for your answers.


----------



## Yôn

*THIS POST IS A REPLY TO A PREVIOUS VERSION OF A POST, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT SOME OF THE CONTENT HERE MAY NEITHER SEEM NOR BE DIRECTLY RELEVANT AS ASPECTS OF THE ORIGINAL POST CENTRAL TO THIS POST HAVE BEEN CHANGED!!*



brian8733 said:


> 1) was there ever a time in (old) English when _to have_ (_habban_) was used instead of _to be_? If so, when and why did it change?


 
Yes, but I am only aware of them being interchangible - not one in place of the other, as you ask - in forming the perfective and the passive. 

Actually, you can still see them interchanged in texts as late as the 1800s. This is not rare, though; a lot of our modern 'standards' are extremely young when compared to the langauge as a whole. I am not sure I can answer your question as to why they were functionally distributed to their respective realms, though. 

Of course, none of this has much bearing on your question, since I do not know of any time in the past when these two words could be semantically swapped out for one another, only a time when they were functionally interchangible. And, obviously, with your example 'have' and 'be' are used semantically and not merely functionally.

I hope someone else can shed more light on the specifics of this issue, though;
Jon


----------



## brian

Hmmm... actually both of my questions were intended to be restricted to the case of _to be *right*_, and not refer to _to be_ - _to have_ interchangeability in general. I do find it interesting that even outside the context of _right_ the two verbs were often interchanged, as you say, but I fear that may open a whole new can of off-topic worms......

Thanks for the input though!


----------



## Yôn

If no one has posted on this when I get home in a few hours, I will do some digging and see if I cannot find the exact answer to your question.



Jon


----------



## dinji

brian8733 said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> English uses the verb _to be_ to say _to be right_, instead of the verb _to have_, which many other languages employ instead (Sp. _tener razón_, It. _avere ragione_, Ger. _Recht haben_, etc.).


 
In Finnish, a person would also _*be*_ right "_olla oikeassa_" rather than _*have*_ right


----------



## CapnPrep

The OED says that _to have right_ is "now _rare_" (seems like an understatement to me). The first citation is from Chaucer (c1369):
Whan I had wrong and she ryght, She wolde alwey so goodely For-yeve me.​ And the "last" one is from 1865:
‘The king has right!’ cried Hereward. ‘Let them take the plunder’​There is also _to have the right_ (with the same meaning):
c1430 I haue the right and he the wrong.
1828 It is not my part..to decide who had the right or wrong in the present brawl.​I didn't notice any examples of _give (the) right_ in the entries for _right_ or _give_, but it's not the easiest thing to search for…


----------



## brian

I need to start remembering to check the OED before asking these kinds of things. Thanks, for the research. Very appreciated.


----------



## elirlandes

Surely the other person is already correct before you "give" them right, in which case the english language practice of "agreeing" with somebody seems to make more sense than "giving" them right that they already have?

Te doy la razón... sí, pero tenía razón antes de que me lo dieras...
I agree with you... thanks, we are both right, so we are in agreement...


----------



## brian

But "giving right" (unless I'm wrong) is a bit different from simply agreeing, which those languages also have (_essere d'accordo_, _jemandem zustimmen_, etc.). I see "giving right" more as _conceding/admitting_ that someone is right. The tone is a bit different, as may also be the context.

It's sort of like, "Well, I've got to give it to you there..." or something.


----------



## elirlandes

brian8733 said:


> But "giving right" (unless I'm wrong) is a bit different from simply agreeing, which those languages also have (_essere d'accordo_, _jemandem zustimmen_, etc.). I see "giving right" more as _conceding/admitting_ that someone is right. The tone is a bit different.
> 
> It's sort of like, "Well, I've got to give it to you there..." or something.



Valid point, although I would still argue that the "right" is already there and is not within your gift... whereas you could yield [concede/admit] as you say. Again, this would seem more logical...

By the way, it is similar in Irish as well... one _has_ right [tá an _cheart _agum / the _right_ is at me]... Interesting point you have raised...


----------



## brian

I agree that in theory, I suppose, the "right" is already in the other person's "possession," if you will: but it's simply a turn of phrase in those languages.  The fact that you can _say_ the phrase, regardless of whether you're actually "giving" something that's already possessed or not, is irrelevant I think: it's the fact that you _say_ you're giving it, as if it's in your power to give, implying perhaps that they're not inherently right but that you allow them to be so; in a way, it's more assertive/less passive than saying, "Oh you're right." Hard to explain I guess. I might also be overcomplicating it.

Interesting about Irish. Can you "give right" in any way? Like "make right at another person"? (Just guessing.)


----------



## elirlandes

brian8733 said:


> Interesting about Irish. Can you "give right" in any way? Like "make right at another person"? (Just guessing.)


I'm embarrassed to say, I am not sure... lol


----------



## berndf

elirlandes said:


> Valid point, although I would still argue that the "right" is already there and is not within your gift... whereas you could yield [concede/admit] as you say. Again, this would seem more logical...


Not entirely. Though the term _Recht geben_ is used colloquially the origin is legal. Possible claims do not arise from you being right but from an authority acknowledging that you are right. This is the difference between _Recht haben_ (_having right_) and _Recht bekommen_ (_being given right_). It is a famous proverb in German that in court _Recht haben_ and _Recht bekommen_ are two completely different things.


----------



## brian

A proverb which would probably be very hard to translate into English since you can't give or receive right. I guess the idea is that there is a difference between _being right_ and _being deemed (acknowledged as) right_, though that's a bit weak to my taste.


----------



## elirlandes

berndf said:


> Not entirely. Though the term _Recht geben_ is used colloquially the origin is legal. Possible claims do not arise from you being right but from an authority acknowledging that you are right. This is the difference between _Recht haben_ (_having right_) and _Recht bekommen_ (_being given right_). It is a famous proverb in German that in court _Recht haben_ and _Recht bekommen_ are two completely different things.



If I am not mistaken, "recht geben" is to "confer a right" which is another thing altogether... referring to "right" in terms of permission or license, not "correctness".


----------



## berndf

elirlandes said:


> If I am not mistaken, "recht geben" is to "confer a right" which is another thing altogether... referring to "right" in terms of permission or license, not "correctness".


There is no difference; that is the whole point. _Recht (right)_ *means* _justice_ or _law_ and _Recht haben_ *means* _having the law on your side_. _Jemandem Recht geben_ *means* conceding defeat in legal battle or moral struggle. The terms _right_ and _wrong_ are moral and legal categories. Application of the concepts of _right_ or _wrong_ to mere factual correctness is *figurative*. The German idiomatic phrases preserve much of the original moral and legal meaning and speakers are therefore generally more aware of using the terms figuratively.


----------



## CapnPrep

This doesn't work for Romance languages, where the two concepts have different words, and yet they both still go with the verbs _give _and _have_.

And it seems like if someone can _give_ you something, then you could also just _take_ it, or if you _have_ something, then you should be able to _lose _it. So then why don't _Recht nehmen_ and _Recht verlieren_ exist as common expressions (as far as I know) with the meaning "force everyone to accept that you're correct" and "stop being correct"?  My point is, it is very easy to over-interpret these support verbs, when in fact the choice is simply grammaticalized.


----------



## brian

My original point was that the fact that you can "have right" _allows_ for the (grammatical) _possibility_ of "giving right," but it doesn't mean the logic should require any such expression to exist--and that holds true for "taking" and "losing" right.

I also tried to make the point that even "giving right" should not be considered in such a literal way and that it was merely a way of implying concession, but I don't think I was very successful in my explanation.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> This doesn't work for Romance languages, where the two concepts have different words, and yet they both still go with the verbs _give _and _have_.


I can't make any claims about Romance languages (though _ragione_ vs. _torto_ can also mean _justice_ vs. _injustice_ in Italian).



> And it seems like if someone can _give_ you something, then you could also just _take_ it, or if you _have_ something, then you should be able to _lose _it. So then why don't _Recht nehmen_ and _Recht verlieren_ exist as common expressions (as far as I know) with the meaning "force everyone to accept that you're correct" and "stop being correct"? My point is, it is very easy to over-interpret these support verbs, when in fact the choice is simply grammaticalized.


Figurative language seldomly goes all the way.


----------



## brian

I think CapnPrep was talking about It. _ragione vs. diritto, _Fr. _raison vs. droit_, etc. These are both "right" and "Recht" in English and German, respectively.


----------



## berndf

I understand that. What just wanted to state that - at least historically - _ragione _can also mean _diritto _(cf. here)_._ But I am not enough of an expert about the etymology of these expressions in Italien or French to voice an opinion. They might share the same original meaning with German they might not.


----------



## jazyk

> English uses the verb _to be_ to say _to be right_, instead of the verb _to have_, which many other languages employ instead (Sp. _tener razón_, It. _avere ragione_, Ger. _Recht haben_, etc.).


In Portuguese we both _ter razão,_ which we can _dar_, and we _estar certo._


----------

