# To be or to have



## karim37

Hi
I would like to learn to conjugate simple and useful Russian verbs:
I am
You are
etc
I looked online and found that for "I am" it says Я and it says the same for "I have". Can this be correct? I know that Я means I. So does the nounn change instead of the verb to make a difference between for example "she is" and "she has"?


----------



## morzh

Not exactly.

"I am" indeed is "Я".
However "I have" has lots of meanings: from "I possess something" to "I have done something" where it is used to make perfect tense.

So you have to choose which one you need to conjugate.

Also because "I am" is simply "Я", I am not sure how you want to conjugate it, as there is no verb to conjugate.


----------



## oleksii

I am a student - Я студент
She is a student - Она студент
He is a student - Он студент
They are students - Они студенты

I have a car - У меня есть автомобиль
She has a car - У нее есть автомобиль
He has a car - У него есть автомобиль
They have a car - У них есть автомобиль

Added:
You are a student - Ты (вы) студент
You have a car - У тебя (вас) есть автомобиль


----------



## karim37

morzh said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> "I am" indeed is "Я".
> However "I have" has lots of meanings: from "I possess something" to "I have done something" where it is used to make perfect tense.
> 
> So you have to choose which one you need to conjugate.
> 
> Also because "I am" is simply "Я", I am not sure how you want to conjugate it, as there is no verb to conjugate.



I was hoping to learn I am ..., you are ..., he is ... etc so that I can add nouns and adjectives as I learn them and make sentences such as I am a man, I am happy, you are my friend, she is beautiful, etc.
The meaning of to have would be to possess, so that I could make sentences such as I have a book, you have a nice house, he has a car etc. Is this possible in Russian?


----------



## morzh

Well, this is possible in any language, I guess, as long as there is such concept as a car  or house 

Oleksii above has just given you examples.


----------



## karim37

oleksii said:


> I am a student - Я студент
> She is a student - Она студент
> He is a student - Он студент
> They are students - Они студенты
> 
> I have a car - У меня есть автомобиль
> She has a car - У нее есть автомобиль
> He has a car - У него есть автомобиль
> They have a car - У них есть автомобиль
> 
> Added:
> You are a student - Ты (вы) студент
> You have a car - У тебя (вас) есть автомобиль


Thank you. It's interesting. So translated directly into English it would be "I student" "you student" etc. No verb is used. Am I wrong in thinking it should be "Онa студентka" ?
What about "У меня есть автомобиль", does that translate directly as "in my is car"? So you don't use I, you, he etc in these sentences. What about the word машина for car? When would that be used if ever?


----------



## Welshie

Russian omits the verb "to be" in the present tense. So "I am a man" is just "I man" (there are no articles in Russian). Many languages do this, they are known as zero-copula languages.

You can look at the conjugation of the verb быть in the future and the past if you want to say "I was" or "I will be" (and you, he, we etc).

Russian also does not use "to have" to express possession, typically. The construction "У меня есть" means something like "with me is". (Don't worry too much about есть for now). So the "conjugation" here involves changing "me" to "you, him, her" etc. (меня, тебя, его...).


----------



## oleksii

In some eastrn slavic languages verb to be is aleays ommited in present tense, for instance in russian and ukrainian.

Студентка can be used as well as студент for female student, later is more modern trend suggesting gender equality.

У меня есть машина is rather "at me is car'

Меня, нее, тебя, них - are I, she, you, they in genetive case

Машина can be used indtead of автомобиль, but in general машина is a machine


----------



## morzh

karim37 said:


> So translated directly into English it would be "I student" "




It may help you to understand that in cases like "Я студент", "студент" is actually the predicate, that is it describes the state of the subject as a verb would.
It also may help you to understand that, at least formally, it is called "Составное именно сказуемое" (Complex predicate nominal), and the complex it is due to the fact that, again, formally, there is a copula, or a linking verb "быть" (то бе).

In this case it conjugates as "есть":

I am a student - Я есть студент.

However "есть" link in Russian typically omitted, leaving "студент" to remain the predicate.
So in this case "Студент"="есть студент"="am a student".


----------



## Natalisha

karim37 said:


> Hi
> I would like to learn to conjugate simple and useful Russian verbs:
> I am
> You are
> etc
> I looked online and found that for "I am" it says Я and it says the same for "I have". Can this be correct? I know that Я means I. So does the nounn change instead of the verb to make a difference between for example "she is" and "she has"?


This thread might be useful. 
to be


----------



## Wertis

Welshie said:


> Russian omits the verb "to be" in the present tense. So "I am a man" is just "I man" (there are no articles in Russian). Many languages do this, they are known as zero-copula languages.
> 
> You can look at the conjugation of the verb быть in the future and the past if you want to say "I was" or "I will be" (and you, he, we etc).
> 
> Russian also does not use "to have" to express possession, typically. The construction "У меня есть" means something like "with me is". (Don't worry too much about есть for now). So the "conjugation" here involves changing "me" to "you, him, her" etc. (меня, тебя, его...).



I like this post very much. A lot of useful things about Russian grammar as if this piece had been taken from a grammar book. 

We usually omit "to be" like in examples above and the one with "man" illustrates what I mean. "To be" is written and pronounced mostly for emphasis:

I am a man - Я человек
I am a man and I have the vote - Я являюсь человеком и имею право голоса (here I translated "am" not as "есть", but I wanted to show that in many cases we don't translate it at all and hen we do we can use synonyms for "есть", which is "to be")

Regarding "have" to talk about possessions I can say that we translate it but again in different ways:

I have a daughter - У меня *есть* дочь
I have a company - Я *владею* компанией / У меня *есть* компания
I have a house - У меня *есть* дом
I have what I wanted to have - Я *имею* то, что хотел *иметь*

By the way, we don't have articles and hence we never use them. There is no need to think which article to choose. It's always clear from the context if "a" or "the" is meant. It's a pity English requires us to learn them


----------



## karim37

Wertis said:


> I like this post very much. A lot of useful things about Russian grammar as if this piece had been taken from a grammar book.
> 
> We usually omit "to be" like in examples above and the one with "man" illustrates what I mean. "To be" is written and pronounced mostly for emphasis:
> 
> I am a man - Я человек
> I am a man and I have the vote - Я являюсь человеком и имею право голоса (here I translated "am" not as "есть", but I wanted to show that in many cases we don't translate it at all and hen we do we can use synonyms for "есть", which is "to be")
> 
> Regarding "have" to talk about possessions I can say that we translate it but again in different ways:
> 
> I have a daughter - У меня *есть* дочь
> I have a company - Я *владею* компанией / У меня *есть* компания
> I have a house - У меня *есть* дом
> I have what I wanted to have - Я *имею* то, что хотел *иметь*
> 
> By the way, we don't have articles and hence we never use them. There is no need to think which article to choose. It's always clear from the context if "a" or "the" is meant. It's a pity English requires us to learn them


It is not just articles that are absent but the verb "to be", so you say "I man" instead of " I am a man".
Also "to have" is not used as it is in English. You get around it by saying something like "with me is car". Would it be correct to say "y это есть okha" for "it has a window"? I suppose to turn have/has into haven't/hasn't you would put "He" before есть. Am I correct?


----------



## Rosett

karim37 said:


> It is not just articles that are absent but the verb "to be", so you say "I man" instead of " I am a man".
> Also "to have" is not used as it is in English. You get around it by saying something like "with me is car". Would it be correct to say "y это есть okha" for "it has a window"? I suppose to turn have/has into haven't/hasn't you would put "He" before есть. Am I correct?


Оно(он,она) имеет окна.


----------



## morzh

karim37 said:


> It is not just articles that are absent but the verb "to be", so you say "I man" instead of " I am a man".
> Also "to have" is not used as it is in English. You get around it by saying something like "with me is car". Would it be correct to say "y это есть okha" for "it has a window"? I suppose to turn have/has into haven't/hasn't you would put "He" before есть. Am I correct?



The correct way is:

"У дома есть окна"/"у машины есть окна".

Иметь окна можно, если больше иметь нек.....нечего.


----------



## Deem-A

rosett said:


> Оно(он,она) имеет окна.



'oн имеет окна'' шо-то как-то неестественно звучит для моих ушей


----------



## karim37

So it seems that "it has ..." takes a different from from the other ones. I would have said "y Hero есть ...". Would this be wrong?


----------



## Sobakus

karim37 said:


> It is not just articles that are absent but the verb "to be", so you say "I man" instead of " I am a man".
> Also "to have" is not used as it is in English. You get around it by saying something like "with me is car". Would it be correct to say "y это есть okha" for "it has a window"? I suppose to turn have/has into haven't/hasn't you would put "He" before есть. Am I correct?



It's not that the articles are absent, there were no articles in the first place. Это is "this", when referring to an object we use personal pronouns corresponding to the object's gender. It's like "it/he/she has" vs "this has". Here you can read about negations, esp. towards the end of the thread.


> I would have said "y Hero есть ...". Would this be wrong?


It's correct. Здание is masculine, hence genitive него, постройка, which is also a building - feminine, so it would be неё. We add н to его/её when they follow a word ending in a vowel.


----------



## Deem-A

Sobakus said:


> We add н to его/её when they follow a word ending in a vowel.



 I thought that's a matter of preposition,I mean when we have preposition we use н in front of the direct pronoun. у него,против него, с ним,о нем ... But you can say у его брата, против его воли -and here's a matter of direct/indirect object


			
				Sobakus said:
			
		

> Здание is masculine, hence genitive него, постройка, which is also a building - feminine


Здание is neutral,but the pronoun works like a masculine one


----------



## Wertis

karim37 said:


> It is not just articles that are absent but the verb "to be", so you say "I man" instead of " I am a man".
> Also "to have" is not used as it is in English. You get around it by saying something like "with me is car". Would it be correct to say "y это есть okha" for "it has a window"? I suppose to turn have/has into haven't/hasn't you would put "He" before есть. Am I correct?



You're right about "I man" in Russian. I've already commented on it before. As regards "to have" your guess is correct. If for example you're a speaking about a car that has windows (most cars have windows at least windscreen because otherwise a driver won't be able to see in front of him) you can say: *"У машины есть окна"*. "Машина имеет окна" sounds too formal (as if the sentence were taken from a service instruction or a user's guide) and in the everyday life is a bit strange phrase.


----------



## MaRussKa

karim37 said:


> What about the word машина for car? When would that be used if ever?



_машина_ sounds even better and is more common. автомобиль is a long word sounding pretty formal.. like in a manual..

_Он купил новую машину. 
В ней есть встроенный GPS-навигатор. 
Она имеет всё, что нужно для комфорта.
В ней есть всё, что нужно для комфорта.
У нее очень красивый цвет._



> I suppose to turn have/has into haven't/hasn't you would put "He" before есть. Am I correct?


no.
we would put _нет_
_У машины нет окон. 
У машины нет ни окон, ни дверей.  
Машина без окон.
В машине нет GPS-навигатора.
У этой машины нет хозяина.
На машине нет вмятин.
Машина не имеет вмятин._

Saying "Машина не имеет smth" would sound as if the car were alive...


----------



## karim37

MaRussKa said:


> _машина_ sounds even better and is more common. автомобиль is a long word sounding pretty formal.. like in a manual..
> 
> _Он купил новую машину.
> В ней есть встроенный GPS-навигатор.
> Она имеет всё, что нужно для комфорта.
> В ней есть всё, что нужно для комфорта.
> У нее очень красивый цвет._
> 
> 
> no.
> we would put _нет_
> _У машины нет окон.
> У машины нет ни окон, ни дверей.
> Машина без окон.
> В машине нет GPS-навигатора.
> У этой машины нет хозяина.
> На машине нет вмятин.
> Машина не имеет вмятин._
> 
> Saying "Машина не имеет smth" would sound as if the car were alive...


So is the structure different for living and non-living?
I don't have ...., У меня Het ....
He doesn't have ..., y Hero Het ....
but
It doesn't have ...., Он не имеет ....
Am I correct now? I was hoping to be able to use the same form for all sentences (I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they) don't/doesn't have.


----------



## MaRussKa

you can use them all for the same structure. but if you're talking about a thing, not a person/animal, it sounds a bit strange, when you say: 
Дом имеет крыльцо. Машина имеет 4 двери. 
As though they were able to possess something, but actually they're passive, they can't decide what to have and what not. 
So it's better to say: У дома есть крыльцо. У машины 4 двери.

Anyway, "имеет" sounds not very natural in the most cases.. 

but the following sentences are correct:
_Это правило имеет исключения. 
Этот пример имеет ряд особенностей. 
Мальчик имеет врожденное чувство прекрасного. 
Эта машина имеет ряд преимуществ. 
Шар имеет круглую форму. 
Каждый человек имеет право на выбор. 
Этот прибор имеет следующее назначение... 
Действительно ли этот чиновник имеет три дома и 5 машин?
Ему всегда мало того, что он имеет. _


----------



## morzh

It is pretty simple: with either animate or inanimate objects, try to avoid "он/она/оно имеет" in favor of "у него/неё/ есть".
Use "иметь" when you want to emphasize the possession factor. Otherwise, (although I have to admit - it is used very widely, and by the majority - which still does not make it right), it sounds out of place (of course to those who know it sounds out of place. Most people won't notice).


----------



## Wertis

MaRussKa said:


> Saying "Машина не имеет smth" would sound as if the car were alive...



No, it wouldn't!!! Never!!! "Машина не имеет smth" is fine and doesn't make people think it's alive. For example: "*Аэропорт* не *имеет* четкой внутренней планировки". "Airport" is inanimate, but "имеет" goes well with it. If you use google you'll find an enormous number of such examples. I would say that the construction like "Машина не имеет smth" sounds even more formal than "У машины нет smth" and in all documentations and descriptions the construction with "иметь" looks much better and is more relevant.


----------



## morzh

Wertis said:


> No, it wouldn't!!! Never!!! "Машина не имеет smth" is fine and doesn't make people think it's alive. For example: "*Аэропорт* не *имеет* четкой внутренней планировки". "Airport" is inanimate, but "имеет" goes well with it. If you use google you'll find an enormous number of such examples. I would say that the construction like "Машина не имеет smth" sounds even more formal than "У машины нет smth" and in all documentations and descriptions the construction with "иметь" looks much better and is more relevant.



SO far in documentation I've noticed that one could encounter "В ...имеется" more often rather than "....имеет".

Example:

В машине имеется система круз-контроля.
Vs
Машина имеет систему круз-контроля.


----------



## Wertis

MaRussKa said:


> you can use them all for the same structure. but if you're talking about a thing, not a person/animal, it sounds a bit strange, when you say:
> Дом имеет крыльцо. Машина имеет 4 двери.
> As though they were able to possess something, but actually they're passive, they can't decide what to have and what not.
> So it's better to say: У дома есть крыльцо. У машины 4 двери.



"Дом имеет крыльцо".
"Машина имеет 4 двери".

They're absolutely correct and perfectly structured. Even if I tried to cavil at either expression, the only thing I would say is that they sound a bit formal and, for example, when discussing cars with my friend or colleague it would be a bit more natural to say "У машины 4 двери". However "Машина имеет 4 двери" is also suitable. Nothing wrong or strange.



MaRussKa said:


> Anyway, "имеет" sounds not very natural in the most cases..
> 
> but the following sentences are correct:
> 
> _Это правило имеет исключения.
> Этот пример имеет ряд особенностей.
> Мальчик имеет врожденное чувство прекрасного.
> Эта машина имеет ряд преимуществ.
> Шар имеет круглую форму.
> Каждый человек имеет право на выбор.
> Этот прибор имеет следующее назначение...
> Действительно ли этот чиновник имеет три дома и 5 машин?
> Ему всегда мало того, что он имеет. _



These sentences are abolutely fine.


----------



## Wertis

morzh said:


> SO far in documentation I've noticed that one could encounter "В ...имеется" more often rather than "....имеет".
> 
> Example:
> 
> В машине имеется система круз-контроля.
> Vs
> Машина имеет систему круз-контроля.



Right. "В машине имеется" is also possible and I encounter this phrase (not necessarily about a car but about other items I use) very often. Both are OK and interchangeable.


----------



## Wertis

morzh said:


> It is pretty simple: with either animate or inanimate objects, try to avoid "он/она/оно имеет" in favor of "у него/неё/ есть".
> Use "иметь" when you want to emphasize the possession factor. Otherwise, (although I have to admit - it is used very widely, and by the majority - which still does not make it right), it sounds out of place (of course to those who know it sounds out of place. Most people won't notice).



All people have different opinions and sometimes it's difficult to persuade someone that it's also possible to do or say what they dislike or consider starnge. I respect opinions of all my colleagues who help non-natives sort some problem out. Nevertheless the recommendations above seem very strange to me. Why should we avoid "он/она/оно имеет" and prefer "у него/неё/ есть" when speaking about an inanimate object. I don't see the reason. I understand your logic and I see what you mean. Only people can have or possess something (literally) because they have mind (intellect) and can make decisions what to do with things that belong to them. Inanimate objects are devoid of human features and so some people find it strange to use "have" or "possess" about them in Russian. This theory can be supported by grammarians, but it's not followed in our life and this fact doesn't mean that when we say so we make a mistake. 

I've commented on this subject so much not because I want to refute other people's opinions. The true reason is that I don't want non-natives who have encoutered one of such kinds of sentence to believe that a person who has written that particular sentence has made a mistake.


----------



## morzh

Wertis said:


> Why should we avoid "он/она/оно имеет" and prefer "у него/неё/ есть" when speaking about an inanimate object. I don't see the reason.



If you read what I wrote again, you will see that I did not say that. Although I think it holds some truth to it.


----------



## karim37

so to sum it up how would you say:
I don't have ...
He doesn't have ...
It doesn't have ....


----------



## morzh

karim37 said:


> so to sum it up how would you say:
> I don't have ...
> He doesn't have ...
> It doesn't have ....



I have (he has) no bones to pick with you (don't have any bones to pick with you) - Я не имею (он не имеет) к Вам претензий/У меня (у него) нет к Вам претензий.

I don't (he does not) have the keys - У меня (у него) нет ключей.

I don't (he doesn't) have any reason to kill him - У меня (у него) нет причин его убивать.

I have a right - Я имею право / у меня есть право
I have no right - Я не имею права / у меня нет права

I have a dog - у меня есть собака (if someone says "я имею собаку", it will be mockingly interpreted as "I am having sex with a dog").

---

Notice that "я имею" may be used even when it seems that it would be better to use "у меня есть", when there is a stable expression, like the one with "иметь право / иметь претензии".

Othewrise unless emphasizing possession use "у....есть/нет".

---

If "иметь" needs to be used then:

Я не имею / Ты не имеешь / Он не имеет.


----------



## karim37

morzh said:


> I have (he has) no bones to pick with you (don't have any bones to pick with you) - Я не имею (он не имеет) к Вам претензий/У меня (у него) нет к Вам претензий.
> 
> I don't (he does not) have the keys - У меня (у него) нет ключей.
> 
> I don't (he doesn't) have any reason to kill him - У меня (у него) нет причин его убивать.
> 
> I have a right - Я имею право / у меня есть право
> I have no right - Я не имею права / у меня нет права
> 
> I have a dog - у меня есть собака (if someone says "я имею собаку", it will be mockingly interpreted as "I am having sex with a dog").
> 
> ---
> 
> Notice that "я имею" may be used even when it seems that it would be better to use "у меня есть", when there is a stable expression, like the one with "иметь право / иметь претензии".
> 
> Othewrise unless emphasizing possession use "у....есть/нет".
> 
> ---
> 
> If "иметь" needs to be used then:
> 
> Я не имею / Ты не имеешь / Он не имеет.



Thank you! What about "it doesn't have ..." ?


----------



## morzh

karim37 said:


> Thank you! What about "it doesn't have ..." ?



Depends, which "it". 

If it is an object, like a car - we've discussed it here.

Intuitively, I would quote couple of examples and then try to generalize, though I am not sure it can be done with high degree of reliability.

"У машины нет колес". (the car is missing the wheels).
"В машине не имеется кондиционера". (the car is not equipped with air conditioner).

Here's my take on it: in case of wheels the car is obviously missing something which it should have. That is, lets say for the argument's sake, someone stole'em.
Now in this case we're not talking possession - we are talking something else, and hence the possession is not required to be emphasized - we use "у машины нет".

However in the next example, it is something optional, and so "имеется" may be used, as to underscore the car "not possessing" the air vs. "possessing". It is often used in official papers.
Again, in this case we may also use "у машины нет кондиционера". This however does not sound technical - this is more of the way we would say it to each other.
-----------
Then there is "это" as such.

"У этого нет смысла".
"Это не имеет смысла".
"Это не имеет конца".

I think in cases like these, with "это", there are forms used which are accepted stable forms.
I cannot really derive any rule here.


----------



## karim37

morzh said:


> Depends, which "it".
> 
> If it is an object, like a car - we've discussed it here.
> 
> Intuitively, I would quote couple of examples and then try to generalize, though I am not sure it can be done with high degree of reliability.
> 
> "У машины нет колес". (the car is missing the wheels).
> "В машине не имеется кондиционера". (the car is not equipped with air conditioner).
> 
> Here's my take on it: in case of wheels the car is obviously missing something which it should have. That is, lets say for the argument's sake, someone stole'em.
> Now in this case we're not talking possession - we are talking something else, and hence the possession is not required to be emphasized - we use "у машины нет".
> 
> However in the next example, it is something optional, and so "имеется" may be used, as to underscore the car "not possessing" the air vs. "possessing". It is often used in official papers.
> Again, in this case we may also use "у машины нет кондиционера". This however does not sound technical - this is more of the way we would say it to each other.
> -----------
> Then there is "это" as such.
> 
> "У этого нет смысла".
> "Это не имеет смысла".
> "Это не имеет конца".
> 
> I think in cases like these, with "это", there are forms used which are accepted stable forms.
> I cannot really derive any rule here.



Thank you for the examples. With my limited knowledge of Russian I think the difference between the 2 sentences you wrote is that the first one is "The car has no wheels" and the second " there is no air conditioning in the car", which refers to the absence of something rather than lack of ownership. 
I suppose you could use an optional item such as a roof rack when buying a new car (ie the roof rack has not been stolen) in both sentences.
Have I understood correctly.


----------



## morzh

You know, we can beat that to death, but I suggest you get the basics, and then it will come to you as you go, as I don't think we can formalize and exemplify every single possibility here.

If you read this thread from the beginning to the end, you will see that many of us had to repeat ourselves, while giving examples or trying to establish rules.

But the basic thoughts were few.


----------



## MaRussKa

Wertis, calm down, nobody was saying it was not correct. we've only recommended the guy to use the constructions that sound better in the spoken Russian. and as a native speaker I don't have to check the examples on the internet, I just feel it.


----------



## Wertis

MaRussKa said:


> Wertis, calm down, nobody was saying it was not correct. we've only recommended the guy to use the constructions that sound better in the spoken Russian. and as a native speaker I don't have to check the examples on the internet, I just feel it.



I also "feel" words and sentences, but still I sometimes check dubious things on the Internet. Anyway everyone decides themselves whether or not it's necessary for them to do this. I was not quite agreed with your recommendations and that is why I wrote the post above, which are talking about.


----------



## Rosett

Deem-A said:


> 'oн имеет окна'' шо-то как-то неестественно звучит для моих ушей


Дом имеет окна.
Означает,что дом сконструирован таким образом.


----------

