# Derivations of modals 'may'/ 'can'



## ThomasK

What are the modals* 'may' and 'can' *in your language (if ...), and what derivations do you have of those verbs? 

In English there are some: *might *(power) for example. But there might be more. *'Power' *refers to French *'pouvoir'*. 

In Dutch there is *'kunnen' and 'mogen'*, and quite some derivations: 
- _macht_, power
- _vermogen_, capacity, maybe also power
- _kunst_, art
- _kunde_, craftmanship 
There might still be more, but these already give you some idea.


----------



## arielipi

Hebrew:
אם - im, no difference between may and can, except for may can be more formal and be said "ha'im" האם


----------



## ThomasK

But no derivations from im, Arielipi?


----------



## ThomasK

But no derivations from _im_, Arielipi? Is it possible that it can mean 'if' (maybe in Biblical Hebrew)?


----------



## Ёж!

Russian: the single verb «мочь», with two important derivations: «мощь» (power, ~force) and «немочь» (illness, lit. 'non-capacity'). The verb «занемочь» means 'to fall ill', but usually the verb «заболеть» is used, which makes reference to pain instead of lack of capacity. There are other words that are derived from the first two.


----------



## ThomasK

Is 'non-capacity'  the general term for  illness? It reminds me of 'dis-ease' in English ('mal-adie' in French ?)...


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> But no derivations from _im_, Arielipi? Is it possible that it can mean 'if' (maybe in Biblical Hebrew)?


What derivations can be? im... acts exactly as if does in english. it does mean if.


----------



## ThomasK

But it is new to me that a verb can function as a conjunction, or that a verb gives rise to a conjunction (grammaticalisation, that is called: words turning into conjunctions, prepositions, etc.). Very interesting... (I can imagine a similar use of a _may _clause in Dutch, but without _may/ mogen _turning into a conjunction, as in _mocht [dialect moest] het gebeuren/ [might ?/] should it happen_)]


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> But it is new to me that a verb can function as a conjunction, or that a verb gives rise to a conjunction (grammaticalisation, that is called: words turning into conjunctions, prepositions, etc.). Very interesting... (I can imagine a similar use of a _may _clause in Dutch, but without _may/ mogen _turning into a conjunction, as in _mocht [dialect moest] het gebeuren/ [might ?/] should it happen_)]



I dont see where you see a verb, im is a conjunction; im acts as if both in modern and biblical hebrew.


----------



## bibax

Czech:

*moci* = can, to be able (< *mog-ti, root is *mog-/mag-, related to German mögen, die Macht);

nouns: *moc* (power/might, die Macht); *nemoc* (= disease, illness); *pomoc* (= help);
adj. *mocný* (= mighty) > mocnost (= (world) power), mocnář (= monarch, sovereign, usually Franz Joseph I), mocnářství (= monarchy, usually the Austro-Hungarian m.); *nemocný* (= ill) > nemocnice (= hospital), nemocnost (= sickness rate); *pomocný* (= auxiliary) > pomocník (= helper);
perfective verbs: *pomoci* (= to help), namoci (= to strain), vymoci (= to enforce e.g. a claim), přemoci (= to overpower/overcome/subdue), domoci, vzmoci, ...;
imperfective (iterative) verbs: *pomáhati* (= to help, continuously or repeatedly), namáhati (= to strain) > námaha (= strain, exertion), vymáhati, přemáhati, domáhati, vzmáhati, ...;

umocniti (impf. mocniti) = to raise to the power (also in math.), to enhance, to intensify;
odmocniti (impf. odmocňovati) = to extract the root of (math.);
math. mocnina (= power), odmocnina (= root);

*možný* = possible, möglich; *možnost* = possibility, Möglichkeit; _(English uses Latin loanwords)_

*směti* = may, to be allowed (< *su-moi-ja = daring person, cf. Gr. Eumaios);
adj. smělý = daring, bold, courageous > noun smělost = daring, boldness > verb osměliti se = to pluck up courage;


----------



## ThomasK

@arielipi:a modal like _may _is a verb,isn't it? Or is it no verb in Hebrew? Not impossible but I had not consideredthat possible... 

@Bibax: _moci_ cannot mean  ‘may’, permission, then? What is thedifference with _pomocny_ ? Is _moci_ a main verb then, not a formalmodal verb? 
How dothe -_mahati_ verbs fit in? Do they have to do with _moci_ (pomocny)? 
_Smeti _– could there be a link between allowing and daring? There is a similar phenomenon, I suppose, linking Dutch _durven _(to dare), and German _dürfen_ (may,can, be allowed to), but I do not see the inherent semantic link...


----------



## Ёж!

ThomasK said:


> Is 'non-capacity'  the general term for  illness? It reminds me of 'dis-ease' in English ('mal-adie' in French ?)...


No. The usual word is «болезнь», from «боль» – 'pain'.


----------



## arielipi

ThomasK said:


> @arielipi:a modal like _may _is a verb,isn't it? Or is it no verb in Hebrew? Not impossible but I had not consideredthat possible...
> 
> @Bibax: _moci_ cannot mean  ‘may’, permission, then? What is thedifference with _pomocny_ ? Is _moci_ a main verb then, not a formalmodal verb?
> How dothe -_mahati_ verbs fit in? Do they have to do with _moci_ (pomocny)?
> _Smeti _– could there be a link between allowing and daring? There is a similar phenomenon, I suppose, linking Dutch _durven _(to dare), and German _dürfen_ (may,can, be allowed to), but I do not see the inherent semantic link...



no - may and if are merged into one word.


----------



## er targyn

In Turkic auxillary verbs to take and to know are used to mean ability.


----------



## ancalimon

er targyn said:


> In Turkic auxillary verbs to take and to know are used to mean ability.



In Turkish we use "-abil" suffix for "can".

I can do : Yapabilirim.


----------



## er targyn

In Kazakh it's: Jasa.i (iste.i) al.a.myn.


----------



## bibax

ThomasK said:


> @Bibax: moci cannot mean ‘may’, permission, then? What is the difference with pomocný ? Is moci a main verb then, not a formal modal verb?
> How do the -mahati verbs fit in? Do they have to do with moci (pomocny)?
> Směti – could there be a link between allowing and daring? There is a similar phenomenon, I suppose, linking Dutch durven (to dare), and German dürfen (may,can, be allowed to), but I do not see the inherent semantic link...


*Moci* expresses capacity/ability/possibility, whereas *směti* expresses permission/authorization, however these meanings often overlap esp. in questions, e.g. _Mohu/smím_ vám pomoci? = _Can/may_ I help you?
But:
Elektřina _může_ zabít. = Electricity _"has ability"_ to kill.
Elektřina _smí_ zabít. = Electricity _"has permission"_ to kill. _(quite nonsensical)_
James Bond _smí_ zabíjet. = J. B. _"has permission/licence"_ to kill.

*Směti* originally meant 'to dare', 'to venture', hence the derived words _smělý, smělost_. I don't know why the meaning has shifted from 'to dare' to the modal 'to be allowed to, to have permission to'.

*Pomoci* (prefix po- + moci) means 'to help'. All prefixed verbs *-moci/-máhati* are common regular verbs (pomoci, přemoci, vymoci, pomáhati, přemáhati, vymáhati, etc.), they have all forms like any other regular verbs.

For example:

*přemoci* (perf.) < *pre-*mog*-ti, the root is *mog- = to overcome, über*mög*en;
*přemáhati* (imperf.) < *pre-*mag*-a-ti, the root is *mag-, a grade of *mog-;

_Přemohu_ tu bolest. = _I shall overcome_ the pain.
_Přemáhám_ tu bolest. = _I am overcoming_ the pain.


----------



## ThomasK

As for Turkish and Kazakh, I don't quite understand. Where is the *can/ may *precisely? I suppose there are no derivations then...


----------



## er targyn

Yes, there are no derivations. can/may are in verbs al- "to take", bil- "to know", bol- "to be/happen/finish". One more example: "May I come in?" in Kazakh would be "Kirwge bola ma?", which literally translates as "To coming-in will happen?"


----------



## ThomasK

'Will happen ?' is then something like _maybe_, _peut-être_, Dutch _misschien_, I guess. But I am not sure, as 'will' is not 'may' as such... I suppose it is too complex to compare with other languages. But thanks!


----------



## Ёж!

Ёж! said:


> Russian: the single verb «мочь», with two important derivations: «мощь» (power, ~force) and «немочь» (illness, lit. 'non-capacity'). The verb «занемочь» means 'to fall ill', but usually the verb «заболеть» is used, which makes reference to pain instead of lack of capacity. There are other words that are derived from the first two.


There is an even more important derivation, so important that it seemed too obvious for me somehow, and I skipped it. It is the adjective «возможный» ('possible'), with some regular derivations therefrom. And, well, «помочь» and «перемочь» exist in Russian like in Czech ('to help' and 'to overcome').


----------



## ThomasK

I had forgotten it myself in Dutch: _mogelijk_, of course !


----------



## bibax

ThomasK said:


> I had forgotten it myself in Dutch: _mogelijk_, of course!


Das ist unmöglich! 

BTW, Russian has also an equivalent to the Czech verb směti: *сметь* (in fact it is the same verb, only written in Cyrillic):

směti - сметь;
smělý - смелый;
smělost - смелость;
osměliti se - осмелиться;


----------



## mataripis

In Tagalog these two can be translated in one word "Maari" but in older forms Can is " Mangyari" or "magawa" while May is " Loobin" or "Papangyarihin".


----------



## Ёж!

bibax said:


> BTW, Russian has also an equivalent to the Czech verb směti: *сметь* (in fact it is the same verb, only written in Cyrillic):


It does not look like an equivalent. All it means is 'to dare' (when someone else forbids or is likely to forbid). When a person «смеет» do something, this means s/he is not allowed / does not have permission to do it (but nevetheless does).


----------



## bibax

Ёж! said:


> It does not look like an equivalent. All it means is 'to dare' (when someone else forbids or is likely to forbid). When a person «смеет» do something, this means s/he is not allowed / does not have permission to do it (but nevetheless does).


In Old Czech the verb směti also meant 'to dare'. Now it means 'to be allowed/to have permission'.

However in the negative sentences směti and сметь have very similar (if not identical) meaning:

tohle *nesmíš* dělat — ты *не смеешь* этого делать — du *darfst* das *nicht* tun  — you must not do it / you are not allowed to do it;


----------



## Ёж!

bibax said:


> However in the negative sentences směti and сметь have very similar (if not identical) meaning


Well, the Russian version means exactly that someone is not allowed to do something _and_ he does not do that; figuratively, it can mean only the first, i.e. not having permission, but the expression results to be very strong ('It cannot be imagined that you do that! Forget that way of action altogether, it cannot happen, that's all!').

This is a very beautiful 'false friend', by the way; let's say, for example, a Russian furiously remarks «Он смеет воровать мои деньги!»*, and a Czech listens. 

* lit. 'He dares steal my money!'


----------



## ThomasK

I had always wondered about the link between daring and being allowed, but what Ëx writes , is quite plausible: something like challenging someone. We only think of daring as having the guts to dosomething, something personal, not challenging authority or a person first of all, I think. But in this way _may/can _and _dare _have some kind of intrinsic link, I guess... As a matter of fact, there is something like 'I dare you' in English, I believe...


----------



## ThomasK

mataripis said:


> In Tagalog these two can be translated in one word "Maari" but in older forms Can is " Mangyari" or "magawa" while May is " Loobin" or "Papangyarihin".



But then: no nouns like _power_, or _craft_, or .., based on it? Or _possible _(< potere, pouvoir, be able to)?


----------



## arielipi

In hebrew theres also an opposite direction:
usually the one asking may is the more powerful, or theyre the same power level.
in more formal uses of may and can, for may: the less powerful will use the word התואיל hato'il which is translated to 'would', while the powerful uses the regular may.

of course it is not a must, its just something that can be thought of as a way less powerful people would ask from more powerful (just like saying your majesty instead of just you, or the king etc).
It can also be to show impatience, התואיל בטובך לשבת כבר? would you (show kindness [impatiently]) sit already?


----------



## Ёж!

ThomasK said:


> I had always wondered about the link between daring and being allowed, but what Ëx writes , is quite plausible: something like challenging someone.


I think the Russian & Czech version has nothing to do with challenging anyone, rather it is connected to not having fear, not fearing obstacles, not stopping before obstacles, or things like these. Of course, 'dare' is an inaccurate translation.


----------



## bibax

Ёж! said:


> I think the Russian & Czech version has nothing to do with challenging anyone, rather it is connected to not having fear, not fearing obstacles, not stopping before obstacles, or things like these. Of course, 'dare' is an inaccurate translation.


It is supported by the meaning of the old derivations smělý (= bold) and smělost (= boldness). Smělý člověk, смелый человек (a bold man) is a man that does not fear of obstacles. Also abstract concepts may be bold: _смелый_ эксперимент молодого режиссера — _smělý_ experiment mladého režiséra — a bold experiment of a young director.

I still wonder why the meaning of _směti_ and _сметь_ are so different in the affirmative sentences whereas there is nearly no difference in the negative sentences.


----------



## Ёж!

bibax said:


> I still wonder why the meaning of _směti_ and _сметь_ are so different in the affirmative sentences whereas there is nearly no difference in the negative sentences.


Is there really no difference in negative? If the Russian verb «не смеет» is used, neutrally it is taken to mean he does not do that: «он *не смеет* ко мне приближаться» ~ 'he does not approach me as he is afraid of me, as he thinks he is not permitted to and/or *fears* my anger'; this is a stylistically coloured version of «он не осмеливается ко мне приближаться», which means nearly the same. As far as I understand your explanations, the Czech verb would mean that  he does not have permission to approach me, which is not the sense of  the Russian sentence. «Я хотел было пройти через двор дома Егоровых, но не посмел» – 'I thought to pass by the courtyard of Egorovy's house, but changed my mind, as I decided I'm not permitted to nor welcome there'.


----------



## bibax

Ёж! said:


> Is there really no difference in negative? If the Russian verb «не смеет» is used, neutrally it is taken to mean he does not do that: «он *не смеет* ко мне приближаться» ~ 'he does not approach me as he is afraid of me, as he thinks he is not permitted to and/or *fears* my anger'; this is a stylistically coloured version of «он не осмеливается ко мне приближаться», which means nearly the same. As far as I understand your explanations, the Czech verb would mean that  he does not have permission to approach me, which is not the sense of  the Russian sentence. «Я хотел было пройти через двор дома Егоровых, но не посмел» – 'I thought to pass by the courtyard of Egorovy's house, but changed my mind, as I decided I'm not permitted to nor welcome there'.


In Czech the meaning slightly depends on context. There are certain nuances in meaning.

On se ke mně nesmí přiblížit. = He is not allowed to approach me (maybe he has a judicial stay away order).

On se nesmí přiblížit k mému psovi. = He mustn't approach my dog (as if he did it then my dog would bite him).

Consider Russian "Ты не смеешь упасть!", in Czech "Nesmíš upadnout!" = You mustn't fall! I think it means 'if you fell it would be a catastrophe for you/me/both' both in Russian and Czech.


----------



## Ёж!

bibax said:


> Consider Russian "Ты не смеешь упасть!", in Czech "Nesmíš upadnout!" = You mustn't fall! I think it means 'if you fell it would be a catastrophe for you/me/both' both in Russian and Czech.


There is a common trait in the two meanings: both report someone's not feeling nice about doing something. I think this trait played the trick here.


----------



## ThomasK

bibax said:


> It is supported by the meaning of the old derivations smělý (= bold) and smělost (= boldness). Smělý člověk, смелый человек (a bold man) is a man that does not fear of obstacles. Also abstract concepts may be bold: _смелый_ эксперимент молодого режиссера — _smělý_ experiment mladého režiséra — a bold experiment of a young director.
> 
> I still wonder why the meaning of _směti_ and _сметь_ are so different in the affirmative sentences whereas there is nearly no difference in the negative sentences.


  Yet, I think, my misunderstanding might have shown some link between both concepts - and the explanation for the evolution in German.


----------

