# Lack of verbs TO BE and TO HAVE in Arabic



## effeundici

When I started to study a little Arabic I was completely stunned, at first, when I realized that that language lacked the verbs *to be *and *to have.*

But after a while I realized that these 2 verbs can be,actually,completely useless.

If I remember well in Arabic a sentence like:

_I'm Italian and I have a car_ becomes _I Italian and a car to me._

My question is: when an Arab native starts to study English or other _be-have languages _what does he/she think and feel about these 2 verbs which are so common and used in our languages?

Actually I (we all?) have the feeling that our languages are built upon these 2 verbs which are the first ones to be taught, sent to memory by children and so on. Before knowing Arabic I would have said that it would be impossible to speak a language without using _to be_ and _to have_


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

effeundici said:


> When I started to study a little Arabic I was completely stunned, at first, when I realized that that language lacked the verbs *to be *and *to have.*
> 
> But after a while I realized that these 2 verbs can be,actually,completely useless.
> 
> If I remember well in Arabic a sentence like:
> 
> _I'm Italian and I have a car_ becomes _I Italian and a car to me._
> 
> My question is: when an Arab native starts to study English or other _be-have languages _what does he/she think and feel about these 2 verbs which are so common and used in our languages?
> 
> Actually I (we all?) have the feeling that our languages are built upon these 2 verbs which are the first ones to be taught, sent to memory by children and so on. Before knowing Arabic I would have said that it would be impossible to speak a language without using _to be_ and _to have_


 
Hmm, I am not too qualified to say anything about arabic, but there always has to be a way to express ownership/qualities in any language and they do not have to correspond anywhere near to the usage in one's native language.  For me, the verb 'to have' and 'to be' are nearly identical; Semitic languages do not make much use of a copula 'be', so considering that 'have' and 'be' are perhaps the same concept, an absense of both shouldn't seem shocking.


----------



## Erick404

To me, it seems reasonably acceptable not to use a verb for "to be", but "to have" couldn't be ommitted without something to add its meaning.
In your example, Arabic seems to use a dative for it. It's almost like a matter of style rather than pure grammar.


----------



## sokol

To leave out the copula completely is not that uncommon really; the same happens e. g. in Russian (systematically), and also in older style German literature in chains of perfect tense the copula may be omittet once or twice to avoid repeating it (but this should be discussed in German forum in case somebody's interested ;-).
This just for the record, so now back to Arabic about which unfortunately I can't add anything.


----------



## palomnik

Arabic does have a verb for _to be.  _It just doesn't normally use it in the present tense.

This factor is tied in with other features in Arabic grammar, having to do with the fact that Arabic verbs basically express aspect rather than tense.


----------



## entangledbank

This lack is not uncommon. Welsh lacks "have" and does it much the way Arabic does. Russian like Arabic doesn't use a present-time "be", but both do have the verb in the past - Russian _byl_, Arabic _kaana_. I think the present (imperfective) _yakuunu_ is used for the future of "be", but I can't remember for sure. To explain English _have_ or Italian _avere_ you would start with the Arabic _malaka_ "own, possess", and say (I suppose) European languages always use that construction instead of the prepositional one.


----------



## Mahaodeh

If you are talking strictly about meaning, then a verb 'to be' and 'to have' do exist in Arabic; if you are talking about the way it's used grammatically, then no because you don't need them in Arabic.
 
It's true that the verb kaana (with its different tenses and inflictions) is a good equivalent for a verb to be; but you would not use it to say something like "he is an engineer" or "they are coming" because it would be either redundant or totally wrong - there are other ways to express that. It's more common to use it in the past tense but one must keep in mind that the use in the past is totally different from the English use, it’s generally used to turn a nominal sentence to the past tense, especially if the sentence has no verb at all. As an example: to say ‘ash-shamsu mushriqa’ means ‘the sun is shining’ but there is no verb to be here – you don’t need it because a verb is not essential to sentence unless you want to express the temporal aspect; so, to turn it into the past one must have a verb, hence one would say ‘kaanat ash-shamsu mushriqa’ using the verb kaana (was) but only because otherwise it would not be in the past.
 
This can become a little clearer when talking about have; which I would translate to ‘3ind’ rather than ‘malaka’ which means ‘to own’; if you want to say something like ‘he has a car’ you would say ‘3indahu sayyara’; in the past tense it would be ‘kaana 3indahu sayyara’!
 
Other times, it’s just wrong to use something for ‘have’ or ‘be’; the sentence would not make sense.


----------



## origumi

Hebrew / (classical) Aramaic are similar to Arabic in this regard. The verb "to be" exists - root h-y-h or h-w-h - but its implmenetation is unlike IE languages. Normally h-y-h is not used as copula. Its present tense is defective - maybe because it is employed mainly for past and future (as Mahaodeh described for Arabic).

There's no "to have" in Hebrew, the defective "to be" is used instead. To express "I have" we say something like "there is to me" or alternatively use other constructs like "there is in my possession".


----------



## berndf

effeundici said:


> Actually I (we all?) have the feeling that our languages are built upon these 2 verbs which are the first ones to be taught, sent to memory by children and so on. Before knowing Arabic I would have said that it would be impossible to speak a language without using _to be_ and _to have_


I think this is because the predicate in IE languages is tied to a conjugated verb form and before learing Arabic you could not imagine a language without this restriction. Semitic languages do not have this restriction. The sentence predicate can be a noun or adjective. This concept is called a "nominal sentence".

Interestingly, Hebrew uses nominal sentences to express the missing present tense: The predicate is a verbal adjective (like the IE present participle). E.g. "I speak" is "ani omer" = "I speaking". Accordingly, the "verb" - which syntactically is an adjective - is declined and not conjugated: A man says "ani omer" while a woman says "ani omeret". (I hope I didn't make a mistake in the example; my Hebrew is a bit rusty).


----------



## Abu Rashid

> when I realized that that language lacked the verbs *to be *and *to have.*


*

*As Mahaodeh mentioned, the verb does indeed exist, it's just considered redundant in many common situations in which we insert it in English.As a native English speaker, and late learner of Arabic, I can say I found this a completely natural thing, and never considered it strange at all. To me it made Arabic make more sense, since in English it just feels like we're wasting our breath speaking pointless redundant words sometimes.The verb for being indeed exists, and is used commonly, but just not where it would be redundant:

كان - [he] was
يكون - [he] is
كن - be (imperative)

The famous passage of the Qur'an uses this verb to indicate how life came into existence.

ًWhen God said: كن فيكون - "be" and so it is.


----------



## effeundici

Thank you all; very interesting.


----------



## Outlandish

This discussion reminds me when I was a little child how it was confusing for me and others that there should be a verb to be in the English sentence, and sarcastically asked the question, "why should I say: he (is) good?! I should simply say: he good!". Why should it be said: this man is honest, while it is clear when said: this man honest, the Arabian mentality wonders.

I also found it strange that the pronouns in English are used overtly. In Arabic you would say: سألت أحمد وأجاب  Literally, I asked Ahmad and answered. In the Arabic language it is redundant to repeat 'Ahmad' in this sentence-by usinf 'he'- because it is understood from the context that he is the one who answered, although, I have to admit, it is not clear from the literal English translation who exactly is the one who answered.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

sokol said:


> To leave out the copula completely is not that uncommon really; the same happens e. g. in Russian (systematically


Is it the same for all Slavic languages ? And what about Hungarian and Finnish ?



Outlandish said:


> I also found it strange that the pronouns in English are used overtly. In Arabic you would say: سألت أحمد وأجاب Literally, I asked Ahmad and answered. In the Arabic language it is redundant to repeat 'Ahmad' in this sentence-by usinf 'he'- because it is understood from the context that he is the one who answered, although, I have to admit, it is not clear from the literal English translation who exactly is the one who answered.



I think subject pronouns are necessary in English, because unlike Arabic there are few personal markers in conjugations : the word _ask_ can express five persons of the present tense and _asked_ is used for any person of the preterite. Dropping them could make some sentences really unclear. For the same reason French needs pronouns whereas they can be implied in Spanish or Italian.


----------



## PoliglotESSE

As *sokol* said, in Russian we also don't use "to be" and "to have" the same way as English speakers do. "To be" appears in past tense or helps to form future *imperfect* tense. To express possession we say (literaly) "at me there is" (genetive). However, we have such verbs themselves though their usage like "I am a student" or "I have a cat" would sound odd 
That's why it was quite easy for me to learn Hebrew where such patterns as "I student", "there's a cat to me" (dative), "he good" are normal  I'm looking forward to spare more time for learning Arabic


----------



## sokol

J.F. de TROYES said:


> Is it the same for all Slavic languages ? And what about Hungarian and Finnish ?


No, this is specifically Russian, or probably Eastern Slavic (I don't have tried yet reading Ukrainian or Belorusian, not in earnest at least).

I'm sure there's a thread about this somewhere in the Slavic forum but I didn't find any (difficult topic to search).
I don't know about Hungarian and Finnish; but if there's a wish to broaden discussion to comparisons with other/all languages we should open a new topic.


----------



## Hulalessar

sokol said:


> but if there's a wish to broaden discussion to comparisons with other/all languages we should open a new topic.



http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=7786592#post7786592


----------



## Arabus

effeundici said:


> When I started to study a little Arabic I was completely stunned, at first, when I realized that that language lacked the verbs *to be *and *to have.*
> 
> But after a while I realized that these 2 verbs can be,actually,completely useless.
> 
> If I remember well in Arabic a sentence like:
> 
> _I'm Italian and I have a car_ becomes _I Italian and a car to me._
> 
> My question is: when an Arab native starts to study English or other _be-have languages _what does he/she think and feel about these 2 verbs which are so common and used in our languages?
> 
> Actually I (we all?) have the feeling that our languages are built upon these 2 verbs which are the first ones to be taught, sent to memory by children and so on. Before knowing Arabic I would have said that it would be impossible to speak a language without using _to be_ and _to have_



This is an interesting questions you're asking. Arabs do indeed experience some strangeness when they first encounter the foreign usage of these two verbs; but what happens is that they usually approximate these two things to the closest they have in their language -- the present be verb to the pleonastic resumptive pronouns commonly used in the Arabic syntax (_huwa_, _hiya_, etc.), and the verb "have" to the verb "own" (_malaka_, _yamliku_,...) which does exist in Arabic. So "the man is here" is often literally translated to "the man he here;" and "he has a car" to "he owns a car." When the subject in present be sentences is a pronoun itself they usally use the imperfective of be (_yakuunu_), so "he is here" is literally translated to "he will be here;" note though that most of them do not realize that _yakuunu _in this case denotes a future tense verb-- the temporal sense of Arabic verbs is weak as verbs are mostly aspectual.

When I was younger I heard somebody saying on TV that the western use of a present be verb is a primitive lingual feature and that the Arabic situation is superior. I thought it was stupid then and I still do, but it is a good example to show that people do feel these differences and do think about them.


----------



## boadicea7

whoa superior?
In what sense?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Arabus said:


> When I was younger I heard somebody saying on TV that the western use of a present be verb is a primitive lingual feature and that the Arabic situation is superior. I thought it was stupid then and I still do,


I'm glad and relieved that you don't agree with that speaker on tv about the linguistic features mentioned.



> but it is a good example to show that people do feel these differences and do think about them.


There is one minor point, however, on which we don't seem to agree. You wrote that this shows that "people [...] do *think* about them [=those features]". 
To me, this shows that there are people around (anywhere on this planet) who *don't think* about it, who don't seem to have the slightest idea of what they are talking about and for whom ignorance and sheer stupidity don't seem to be an obstacle. Not really too a big surprise: thinking and tv don't always go hand in hand

Nevertheless, I am quite curious about the motivation of that speaker to make such an off the wall statement. Do you remember how he substantiated it?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Arabus

He was not really an expert on language, and it was a long time ago; but I think he based his claim on the perception by Arabs of present be verbs as a redundancy. People tend to associate redundant speech with cavemen (like when a caveman says "Bogo loves Gogo" for "I love you"). But this is stupid because you can say the same thing about the several constructions of Arabic and Semitic syntax rounded up under the term "emphatic;" and in fact, Classical Arabic does have a present be verb that is not commonly recognized as such, although its use is emphatic.

This was just an isolated incidence by an individual. Arabs are one of the least cultures in the world to endorse any racist or supremacist claims.


----------



## effeundici

Arabus said:


> He was not really an expert on language, and it was a long time ago; but I think he based his claim on the perception by Arabs of present be verbs as a redundancy. People tend to associate redundant speech with cavemen (like when a caveman says "Bogo loves Gogo" for "I love you"). But this is stupid because you can say the same thing about the several constructions of Arabic and Semitic syntax rounded up under the term "emphatic;" and in fact, Classical Arabic does have a present be verb that is not commonly recognized as such, although its use is emphatic.
> 
> This was just an isolated incidence by an individual. Arabs are one of the least cultures in the world to endorse any racist or supremacist claims.


 
That's interesting. Consider that in Italian, on the contrary,the most common way to imitate cavemen is by dropping the verb *to be *: Io Tarzan, tu Cita (Me Tarzan, you Cheeta)


----------



## Arabus

lol ... interesting ... and makes sense ... it really depends on what language you speak.


----------



## Arabus

I would say that using less words is more primitive, it makes sense. European languages have more complicated syntax than Semitic, and I think this makes them better for expressing exact ideas; like, for example, the feature of restrictive relative clauses, which does not really exist in Arabic; and it really makes a big difference. Arabic is obviously a less efficient language than European languages.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Arabus said:


> I would say that using less words is more primitive, it makes sense. European languages have more complicated syntax than Semitic, and I think this makes them better for expressing exact ideas; like, for example, the feature of restrictive relative clauses, which does not really exist in Arabic; and it really makes a big difference. Arabic is obviously a less efficient language than European languages.


 
Are you sure you speak Arabic???!!!

I think it unproductive to compare languages in this way - rest assured, if it was logical, linguists would have done that a long time ago to show which is the most efficient language to speak.

The fact is, the most superior is not the one with most complicated syntax, nor is it the one with less syntax for that matter!! It's the language that's most expressive.

But, all languages are expressive - it really depends on the speaker more than the language. Basing the superiority of the language on it's complication or simplicity is not valid, it's like saying "patterned shirts are more superior than plain ones because they have more color, hence more sophisticated" or vice versa!!

In all cases, the lack of verb to be is as much a sign of superiority as it is a sign of primitiveness; the surprise of its lack or its existence depends, in my opinion, highly on what one was used to and what one was taught as a child when he/she learned to first speak. I was able to speak both Arabic and English fluently by the age of five and I never even thought of the issue.

I was aware that verbs to be and to have exist in English and not in Arabic, I was also aware that gender and the dual form existed in Arabic and not in English but I never once even wondered why - the answer was always very simple: they are two different languages, hence they work in a different way.

My case is not very common though, people generally learn one language first, then go on to learn the other so they can't help but compare and wonder "why is this so" and "which one is better" because I believe it's only human nature to think that the language you learnt first is the best - you can use it effortlessly and you can express your every feeling with it while you have trouble using the other one - it's definitely not as efficient, is it?

But then, native speakers think otherwise, don’t they?


----------



## Arabus

Mahaodeh said:


> Are you sure you speak Arabic???!!!
> 
> I think it [is] unproductive to compare languages in this way - rest assured, if it was logical, linguists would have done that a long time ago to show which is the most efficient language to speak.



Look how Maha dropped the present be when she got emotional-- this happens all the time to Arabic speakers including myself.

Maha, you may want to read this. I am talking from a good personal experience and I know for sure that reading math and physics in English makes you understand them better, although I haven't met another Arabic speaker yet who would agree with me.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

effeundici said:


> That's interesting. Consider that in Italian, on the contrary,the most common way to imitate cavemen is by dropping the verb *to be *: Io Tarzan, tu Cita (Me Tarzan, you Cheeta)



Me Tarzan, you Jane 

That in English is how one would expect a caveman to speak. Little or no use of conjugated verbs combined with simple words meant to convey the point i.e. "Water, need, now".
However, in Arabic, if I understand correctly, the opposite is the case.


----------



## effeundici

As the starter of this thread, I'd like to stress the point that, at least in my opinion, *to be *and *to have *are not the same as the *dual form* in Arabic or the Italian *imperfetto *or the *Slavonic cases.*

These leanguages have these particular features which do not exist in different languages. Ok, no problem, we do know that different languages have different rules.

But *to be *and *to have *seem to be the foundations upon which we build our languages and something which existed even before the birth of languages. When you realize that this convinciment is completely false, well, it's quite amazing!

Just trying be more convincing I'll say that the very first Greek philosophers spent years reflecting about *the being and the not being; *we are all human *beings, *we are very interested in the *essence (esse = to be *in Latin) of the things, the Christian God defines himself (herself*??) I am the one who is. *


----------



## Arabus

They have already told you that the verb to be does exist in Semitic, although with a different root in each language (in Arabic the root is k-w-n). The use of this verb in the present tense is a redudency, and in Wikipedia they claim that Semitic "drops" the be verb in the present, which implies that the Semitic situation is a step forward.

It seems to me that all the Semitic roots denoting existence are derived from demonstratives (Arabic kaana from a demonstrative similar to *kan > kay, Hebrew hayaa from a demonstrative *san related to _sham _"there").

In Arabic:

To be/being: _kawnun, 'an yakuuna_
A being: _kaa'inun_

It seems to me that you don't get the situation-- what does not exist in Arabic is only _am, are_, and _is_, which are a total redundancy.

Maybe this is a good reason to use the word "copula" instead of be verb-- to avoid this confusion. But most people wouldn't know what a copula is.


----------



## origumi

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Given what has been said here, I wonder how Arabic would express this idea?


In Hebrew "I am the one who is..." becomes something like "I the one that...". Arabic should be similar here.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> In Hebrew "I am the one who is..." becomes something like "I the one that...". Arabic should be similar here.


I think he meant "I am the one who is." as an entire sentence ("the Christian God defines himself (herself??) I am the one who is."). (Maybe something like "anochi asher hajah wejehi"? Just a bold guess.)


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

I quite agree with Arabus and Origami. I suppose any human language has lexical means to express the idea of being . Arabic uses words chiefly related either to the root "k-ā-n "or to the root "w-j-d" and nouns as كيان (kiyān)  or وجود (wujūd) can belong to  the philosophical field ; Abu Rashid (#10) has already given a good example. 

Using a verb _to be_ as a grammatical tool to link, let's say, a subject and a predicate in order to define somebothing or somebody is quite different because every language has its own features . As it was already said, various languages don't know  this kind of structure (See here ) and that does'nt mean at all they don't have the notion of being ! Indonesian says " Kita di rumah" ( We at home) or " Mereka muda " ( We young) and Chinese does the same for the second example because the adjective by itself is equivalent to " to be young". And it does'nt sound gibberish at all.

http:////en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula#See_also 
 

http:////en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula#See_also


----------



## Arabus

berndf said:


> I think he meant "I am the one who is." as an entire sentence ("the Christian God defines himself (herself??) I am the one who is."). (Maybe something like "anochi asher hajah wejehi"? Just a bold guess.)



The Jewish God speaks Hebrew, the Christian God speaks Aramaic, and the Muslim God speaks Arabic; so excuse me, but there is no way on earth that God says anything cannot be said in Semitic.

Tell me where this is in the Bible and I'll tell you what God said.


----------



## berndf

Arabus said:


> The Jewish God speaks Hebrew, the Christian God speaks Aramaic, and the Muslim God speaks Arabic; so excuse me, but there is no way on earth that God says anything cannot be said in Semitic.


The sentence I proposed was transcribed Hebrew.

The Christian God, by the way, speaks any language. The original of the New Testament is in Greek. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. But this is irrelevant in Christanity: God speaks to everyone in the language he or she understands.


----------



## Arabus

I am sorry I wanted to comment on what effeundici said. ​ 
This is the verse:​ 
Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁάτωρ παντοκρ​ 
It literally says "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord the God, the existing and the was-existing and the self-forth-bringing, the Almighty."

​ This would be in Arabic something like "ʔanā l-ʔalifu wa-l-yaaʔ, qāla r-rabbu l-ʔilāh, ʔal-kaaʔinu wa-l-laḏī kāna kāʔinan wa-l-laḏī sa-yaḥḍur, šāmilu l-qudrah"
​ In Tiberian Hebrew, "ʔanī hā-ʔālef we-hattāw,  neʔum YHWH ʔelohīm, ha-hōwe we-hāyā we-yāvōʔ, ʔelohē  ṣevāʔōṯ"​


----------



## WadiH

Arabus said:


> Look how Maha dropped the present be when she got emotional-- this happens all the time to Arabic speakers including myself.



It looked like an ordinary typo to me.  People drop words in typing that they would never drop in their speech, even in their native language.  At least I do.

But I agree that those who learn English as adults take time to adjust to "is", "am", and "are" (and also the article "a/an").


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

Arabus said:


> I would say that using less words is more primitive, it makes sense. European languages have more complicated syntax than Semitic, and I think this makes them better for expressing exact ideas; like, for example, the feature of restrictive relative clauses, which does not really exist in Arabic; and it really makes a big difference. Arabic is obviously a less efficient language than European languages.


 
Let us be careful not to stray from the original topic of the question.  It is also important to note the difference between "primitive" and "simple."  Primitive has a negative connotation; backward, behind in times, etc.  What I think Arabus means by primitive is that a language seems to be more simple in structure in that the structures resemble what a proto-language might have been.  But simplicity does not imply negative connotation; a simple thing has few parts to it but that does not mean that each part is easy to understand.  The German word for simple seems to suit better.  

Language adapts to what its speakers need to express; some languages can be said to be more efficient in describing a certain area because presently or historically its native speakers were involved heavily in whatever that area might be.  But I do not think that any language can be declared to be more efficient than another; however I would make the claim that English (excluding its ability to make new words/verbs on the spot and the wonderful system of prepositions/phrasal verbs) is not a very efficient language.  

The verbs "to be" and "to have" express very universal concepts which can be found in any language, but that language (Arabic as given) does not need to have analogous structures to those verbs; but possession/ownership and existence/qualities have to have some mode of expression and this need not be a verb.


----------



## WadiH

J.F. de TROYES said:


> I quite agree with Arabus and Origami. I suppose any human language has lexical means to express the idea of being . Arabic uses words chiefly related either to the root "k-ā-n "or to the root "w-j-d" and nouns as كيان (kiyān)  or وجود (wujūd) can belong to  the philosophical field ; Abu Rashid (#10) has already given a good example.
> 
> Using a verb _to be_ as a grammatical tool to link, let's say, a subject and a predicate in order to define somebothing or somebody is quite different because every language has its own features . As it was already said, various languages don't know  this kind of structure (See here ) and that does'nt mean at all they don't have the notion of being ! Indonesian says " Kita di rumah" ( We at home) or " Mereka muda " ( We young) and Chinese does the same for the second example because the adjective by itself is equivalent to " to be young". And it does'nt sound gibberish at all.
> 
> http:////en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula#See_also
> 
> 
> http:////en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula#See_also



I think you're the only person here who has made this very important distinction.

Yes, grammatically, Arabic does not employ a "verb to be" as an essential element of syntax.  We don't say "Paul is an engineer," but rather "Paul engineer."

But that does not mean that Arabic lacks a verb that expresses the concept of "being," which is the conclusion some here have jumped to.  In fact, Arabic uses the root ك و ن (k-w-n) to express being, as well as the root و ج د (w-j-d) to express existence.  For example, the famous (to Muslims) Quranic verse: "إنما أمره إذا أراد شيئاً أن يقول له كن فيكون" (innama 2amruhu itha araada shay2an 2an yaquula lahu *kun fayakuun* -- "... when he wills a thing he says *'be' and so it is.*"  Also, the orthodox Islamic credo regarding God: يعلم ما كان وسوف يكون وما لم يكن لو كان كيف يكون (ya3lamu ma kaana wa sawfa yakuun, wa ma lam yakun law kaana kayfa yakuun - "He knows what was and what will be, and what has not, if it was, how it would be.").


----------



## olric

I'd like to add that in Turkish too the use of these two verbs is close to that of Arabic, with unhandy conjugations.

"_Türküm_" means "_I am a Turk_", syntaxly speaking "Turk-_am_"
the "_am_" being the first person.

Türküm 
Türksün
Türktür (here -_tür_ is optional)
Türküz
Türksünüz
Türkler _or _Türktürler (again _-türler _or _-ler_ is optional)

"_I have a dream._" becomes "_Bir hayalim var._" that is "_A dream-of me-existent._"

hayalim
hayalim
hayali
hayalimiz
hayaliniz
hayalleri

Remember that the vowel harmony and the consonant harmony makes it more complicated for learners.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Wadi Hanifa said:


> For example, the famous (to Muslims) Quranic verse: "إنما أمره إذا  أراد شيئاً أن يقول له كن فيكون" (innama 2amruhu itha araada shay2an 2an  yaquula lahu *kun fayakuun* -- "... when he wills a thing he says *'be'  and so it is.*"


Great minds do think alike.

Already mentioned in post #10.


----------



## Hulalessar

Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> Language adapts to what its speakers need to express; some languages can be said to be more efficient in describing a certain area because presently or historically its native speakers were involved heavily in whatever that area might be.



I do not think this necessarily follows.

If the speakers of a given language use a certain mode of expression X, and X seems to be connected with some aspect of their way of life Y, it is tempting to conclude that Y gave rise to X. However, it may well be the case that another totally unrelated language spoken on another continent also has X, but not Y, and also that a language spoken in the next valley that has Y does not have X. Whilst we all (hopefully) know that the idea that the Inuit have [insert any number you think of] words for snow is a myth, I am sure it is possible that some languages have a richer lexicon on some areas than others. However, it is not unusual that within a language some speakers will employ a richer lexicon in some areas than others. Although I may sometimes  describe a door according to its design or function, to me a door is a door, but to my father who was a carpenter there were many types of door each with a different name and every door was composed of several elements each of which had a name; that did not of course stop him from saying "shut the door" if he was in a draught. 



Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> But I do not think that any language can be declared to be more efficient than another; however I would make the claim that English (excluding its ability to make new words/verbs on the spot and the wonderful system of prepositions/phrasal verbs) is not a very efficient language.



This point has been discussed in this thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1545283&highlight= I just add that I think it is a mistake to think that where  language A requires X to be expressed and language B does not, that language B is, in the respect that it does not require X to be expressed, simpler (or more efficient) than language A. Leaving something implied is an opposite but equal complication to requiring it to be expressed. When something is implied the brain needs to work to supply what is missing, whilst when something needs to be expressed it needs to work to supply it. Where a language leaves something to context the context needs to be understood otherwise there is a failure of communication.


----------

