Why do Russians almost not use verbs of possession akin to “have”?у него есть чемодан -...

Can a multiclassed Kensei monk/Swashbuckler rogue use an offhand finesse weapon to trigger Sneak Attack, without using a bonus action?

Why is this integration method not valid?

How can I get a refund from a seller who only accepts Zelle?

Why does the hash of infinity have the digits of π?

Gravitational Force Between Numbers

What is the purpose of the yellow wired panels on the IBM 360 Model 20?

How do you earn the reader's trust?

Are there guidelines for finding good names for LaTeX 2e packages and control sequences defined in these packages?

Why do Russians almost not use verbs of possession akin to "have"?

Piping the output of comand columns

Are there historical examples of audiences drawn to a work that was "so bad it's good"?

The disk image is 497GB smaller than the target device

What is to the west of Westeros?

Reduce size of sum sub/superscript?

Papers on ArXiv as main references

Was this scene in S8E06 added because of fan reactions to S8E04?

Navigating a quick return to previous employer

Why does the painters tape have to be blue?

How to remove new line added by readarray when using a delimiter?

Why'd a rational buyer offer to buy with no conditions precedent?

Quantum corrections to geometry

What is the use case for non-breathable waterproof pants?

Physical only checkdb is failing, but full one is completed successfully

How to write numbers and percentage?



Why do Russians almost not use verbs of possession akin to “have”?


у него есть чемодан - by him is a suitcaseHow is the “verb government” called in Russian?How to reflexively use the verb вынимать?Use of не стану [делать]Is it possible to translate English tenses into Russian tenses?Directionality of prefixed verbs of motion in present and futureWhy do verbs in past tense—and not other parts of speech—have gender?Why does Russian have three words for marriage?When to use “у” or “к”?Do all verbs in Russian have both an imperfective and perfective aspect?Can you use “едать” and “игрывать” in the present and future tenses?













4















I have always been puzzled as to why the Russians almost never use verbs of possession akin to "have" or "own."



Instead of such verbs, the Russians use the preposition у, whose primary or original meaning is "near" or "at", and sometimes additionally use the verb быть ("be") in the appropriate tense: у меня (есть/была/будет) машина (literally "а car is / was / will be near me"), у моей подруги хороший характер, у него много денег, у этой рыбы острые зубы, у меня хорошее настроение, у меня много дел, and so on. Even if a Russian needs to explicitly stress ownership of, for example, an apartment, he will say something like у меня квартира в собственности rather than я имею квартиру or я владею квартирой, even despite that the latter two constructions are grammatically okay.



The very same grammatical construction is used to express proximity: У дворца роскошный парк ("there is a beautiful park near the palace").



I initially thought that avoiding verbs of possession is common to Slavic languages, but I proved to be wrong. Most other Slavs express possession by verbs akin to "have". For example, in situations where a Russian says у меня много дел, a Pole will say mam wiele rzeczy do zrobienia, and a Serb will say имам пуно посла. It would be pretty unusual for a Russian to say имею много дел, but this is precisely what most other Slavs will say. And below are the most common ways to say "how many yachts do you have?" and "I have a plane" in various Slavic languages:




Polish: Ile masz jachtów? Mam samolot.



Czech: Кolik jachet máš? Mám letadlo.



Serbian: Колико јахти имаш? Имам авион.



Russian: Сколько у тебя (есть) яхт? У меня (есть) самолет.




So my question is this: Why do Russians, in contrast to most other Slavs, almost not use verbs of ownership akin to "have"? In other words, what was the main cultural, historical, or mentality-related factor that resulted in such a difference?



I want to read interesting explanations or hypotheses rather than meaningless answers like "that's the way it is" or "that's just how Russian has evolved." After all, I already know that it is the way it is and that it is how Russian has evolved. The question is why.



Any thoughts are very welcome.










share|improve this question

























  • Good question and I'm also interested in reading any attempts of an answer. Two remarks, however: 1) "the preposition у, which means "near"' - no, it does not mean near in the 'у меня/тебя/него..'. 2) You do need to make an effort and come up with shorter questions. There is a lot of redundancy and it simply takes too long to read. Needless to say, most people just give up after the first paragraph, some don't even start scared off by the size of it, but for those few who do read - it's too verbous, to the point where one feels annoyed (as one's time is limited).

    – tum_
    7 hours ago













  • Thanks, I am happy I finally asked an interesting question :)

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago
















4















I have always been puzzled as to why the Russians almost never use verbs of possession akin to "have" or "own."



Instead of such verbs, the Russians use the preposition у, whose primary or original meaning is "near" or "at", and sometimes additionally use the verb быть ("be") in the appropriate tense: у меня (есть/была/будет) машина (literally "а car is / was / will be near me"), у моей подруги хороший характер, у него много денег, у этой рыбы острые зубы, у меня хорошее настроение, у меня много дел, and so on. Even if a Russian needs to explicitly stress ownership of, for example, an apartment, he will say something like у меня квартира в собственности rather than я имею квартиру or я владею квартирой, even despite that the latter two constructions are grammatically okay.



The very same grammatical construction is used to express proximity: У дворца роскошный парк ("there is a beautiful park near the palace").



I initially thought that avoiding verbs of possession is common to Slavic languages, but I proved to be wrong. Most other Slavs express possession by verbs akin to "have". For example, in situations where a Russian says у меня много дел, a Pole will say mam wiele rzeczy do zrobienia, and a Serb will say имам пуно посла. It would be pretty unusual for a Russian to say имею много дел, but this is precisely what most other Slavs will say. And below are the most common ways to say "how many yachts do you have?" and "I have a plane" in various Slavic languages:




Polish: Ile masz jachtów? Mam samolot.



Czech: Кolik jachet máš? Mám letadlo.



Serbian: Колико јахти имаш? Имам авион.



Russian: Сколько у тебя (есть) яхт? У меня (есть) самолет.




So my question is this: Why do Russians, in contrast to most other Slavs, almost not use verbs of ownership akin to "have"? In other words, what was the main cultural, historical, or mentality-related factor that resulted in such a difference?



I want to read interesting explanations or hypotheses rather than meaningless answers like "that's the way it is" or "that's just how Russian has evolved." After all, I already know that it is the way it is and that it is how Russian has evolved. The question is why.



Any thoughts are very welcome.










share|improve this question

























  • Good question and I'm also interested in reading any attempts of an answer. Two remarks, however: 1) "the preposition у, which means "near"' - no, it does not mean near in the 'у меня/тебя/него..'. 2) You do need to make an effort and come up with shorter questions. There is a lot of redundancy and it simply takes too long to read. Needless to say, most people just give up after the first paragraph, some don't even start scared off by the size of it, but for those few who do read - it's too verbous, to the point where one feels annoyed (as one's time is limited).

    – tum_
    7 hours ago













  • Thanks, I am happy I finally asked an interesting question :)

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago














4












4








4








I have always been puzzled as to why the Russians almost never use verbs of possession akin to "have" or "own."



Instead of such verbs, the Russians use the preposition у, whose primary or original meaning is "near" or "at", and sometimes additionally use the verb быть ("be") in the appropriate tense: у меня (есть/была/будет) машина (literally "а car is / was / will be near me"), у моей подруги хороший характер, у него много денег, у этой рыбы острые зубы, у меня хорошее настроение, у меня много дел, and so on. Even if a Russian needs to explicitly stress ownership of, for example, an apartment, he will say something like у меня квартира в собственности rather than я имею квартиру or я владею квартирой, even despite that the latter two constructions are grammatically okay.



The very same grammatical construction is used to express proximity: У дворца роскошный парк ("there is a beautiful park near the palace").



I initially thought that avoiding verbs of possession is common to Slavic languages, but I proved to be wrong. Most other Slavs express possession by verbs akin to "have". For example, in situations where a Russian says у меня много дел, a Pole will say mam wiele rzeczy do zrobienia, and a Serb will say имам пуно посла. It would be pretty unusual for a Russian to say имею много дел, but this is precisely what most other Slavs will say. And below are the most common ways to say "how many yachts do you have?" and "I have a plane" in various Slavic languages:




Polish: Ile masz jachtów? Mam samolot.



Czech: Кolik jachet máš? Mám letadlo.



Serbian: Колико јахти имаш? Имам авион.



Russian: Сколько у тебя (есть) яхт? У меня (есть) самолет.




So my question is this: Why do Russians, in contrast to most other Slavs, almost not use verbs of ownership akin to "have"? In other words, what was the main cultural, historical, or mentality-related factor that resulted in such a difference?



I want to read interesting explanations or hypotheses rather than meaningless answers like "that's the way it is" or "that's just how Russian has evolved." After all, I already know that it is the way it is and that it is how Russian has evolved. The question is why.



Any thoughts are very welcome.










share|improve this question
















I have always been puzzled as to why the Russians almost never use verbs of possession akin to "have" or "own."



Instead of such verbs, the Russians use the preposition у, whose primary or original meaning is "near" or "at", and sometimes additionally use the verb быть ("be") in the appropriate tense: у меня (есть/была/будет) машина (literally "а car is / was / will be near me"), у моей подруги хороший характер, у него много денег, у этой рыбы острые зубы, у меня хорошее настроение, у меня много дел, and so on. Even if a Russian needs to explicitly stress ownership of, for example, an apartment, he will say something like у меня квартира в собственности rather than я имею квартиру or я владею квартирой, even despite that the latter two constructions are grammatically okay.



The very same grammatical construction is used to express proximity: У дворца роскошный парк ("there is a beautiful park near the palace").



I initially thought that avoiding verbs of possession is common to Slavic languages, but I proved to be wrong. Most other Slavs express possession by verbs akin to "have". For example, in situations where a Russian says у меня много дел, a Pole will say mam wiele rzeczy do zrobienia, and a Serb will say имам пуно посла. It would be pretty unusual for a Russian to say имею много дел, but this is precisely what most other Slavs will say. And below are the most common ways to say "how many yachts do you have?" and "I have a plane" in various Slavic languages:




Polish: Ile masz jachtów? Mam samolot.



Czech: Кolik jachet máš? Mám letadlo.



Serbian: Колико јахти имаш? Имам авион.



Russian: Сколько у тебя (есть) яхт? У меня (есть) самолет.




So my question is this: Why do Russians, in contrast to most other Slavs, almost not use verbs of ownership akin to "have"? In other words, what was the main cultural, historical, or mentality-related factor that resulted in such a difference?



I want to read interesting explanations or hypotheses rather than meaningless answers like "that's the way it is" or "that's just how Russian has evolved." After all, I already know that it is the way it is and that it is how Russian has evolved. The question is why.



Any thoughts are very welcome.







usage глаголы выражения предлоги






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago







Mitsuko

















asked 8 hours ago









MitsukoMitsuko

439212




439212













  • Good question and I'm also interested in reading any attempts of an answer. Two remarks, however: 1) "the preposition у, which means "near"' - no, it does not mean near in the 'у меня/тебя/него..'. 2) You do need to make an effort and come up with shorter questions. There is a lot of redundancy and it simply takes too long to read. Needless to say, most people just give up after the first paragraph, some don't even start scared off by the size of it, but for those few who do read - it's too verbous, to the point where one feels annoyed (as one's time is limited).

    – tum_
    7 hours ago













  • Thanks, I am happy I finally asked an interesting question :)

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago



















  • Good question and I'm also interested in reading any attempts of an answer. Two remarks, however: 1) "the preposition у, which means "near"' - no, it does not mean near in the 'у меня/тебя/него..'. 2) You do need to make an effort and come up with shorter questions. There is a lot of redundancy and it simply takes too long to read. Needless to say, most people just give up after the first paragraph, some don't even start scared off by the size of it, but for those few who do read - it's too verbous, to the point where one feels annoyed (as one's time is limited).

    – tum_
    7 hours ago













  • Thanks, I am happy I finally asked an interesting question :)

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago

















Good question and I'm also interested in reading any attempts of an answer. Two remarks, however: 1) "the preposition у, which means "near"' - no, it does not mean near in the 'у меня/тебя/него..'. 2) You do need to make an effort and come up with shorter questions. There is a lot of redundancy and it simply takes too long to read. Needless to say, most people just give up after the first paragraph, some don't even start scared off by the size of it, but for those few who do read - it's too verbous, to the point where one feels annoyed (as one's time is limited).

– tum_
7 hours ago







Good question and I'm also interested in reading any attempts of an answer. Two remarks, however: 1) "the preposition у, which means "near"' - no, it does not mean near in the 'у меня/тебя/него..'. 2) You do need to make an effort and come up with shorter questions. There is a lot of redundancy and it simply takes too long to read. Needless to say, most people just give up after the first paragraph, some don't even start scared off by the size of it, but for those few who do read - it's too verbous, to the point where one feels annoyed (as one's time is limited).

– tum_
7 hours ago















Thanks, I am happy I finally asked an interesting question :)

– Mitsuko
6 hours ago





Thanks, I am happy I finally asked an interesting question :)

– Mitsuko
6 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














First of all, a shameless plug of my earlier answer on why у does not quite mean "near" (but something more akin to the French chez, i.e. a place/household/domain notion used in the abstract.)



Secondly, I have a general impression that languages usually start out not having a verb for "to have", and then some evolve it and some don't. Entire language families (as far as I'm aware) do without it, such as Turkic or Semitic. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European of Schleicher's fable doesn't have it, and over all the massive updates it received through the years, no-one challenged the part where "sheep that had no wool" was expressed as "sheep to which wool was not".



Since not much is known about Proto-Slavic syntax and idiomatics, it's hard to make the claim that the у меня construction is older than the reflexes of *jьměti/*jьmati in West and South Slavic languages; у меня is also obviously not quite the same as the proposed Proto-Indo-European dative construction ("is to me"). However, what's fairly clear is that this verb started out with a more literal meaning ("to take") and that's pretty much how all Indo-European languages got their "have" verbs: they were all originally verbs for literal taking or holding. If we trace the history of Spanish all the way back to PIE, we can even see it happening twice. First there were the reflexes of the Latin habeo "hold", then Spanish relegated them to a purely auxiliary function and made tener (also "to hold") its "having" verb.



So in the end, apparently it's not how Russian has evolved; it's how other related languages have evolved and Russian stayed a little more conservative: while not keeping the oldest hypothesised construction, it settled on a similar one instead of the more radical and expressive "hold=>have" approach.






share|improve this answer


























  • A very intetesting answer. Do you have any hypothesis why Russian stayed more conservative?

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @Mitsuko Maybe an areal thing. Likely related to the copula-dropping (at least the two phenomena go together in Semitic and Turkic languages too); It could be that when the copula becomes mandatory, its existential meaning weakens, and expressions of the type "at/to me is(=exists)" are not as clear anymore.

    – Nikolay Ershov
    5 hours ago



















1














'Near' has nothing to do with 'zero copula' (that's what you tried to explain). In modern Russian it is presented in past/future tense and, in some cases, present/can be added in tense:




У меня была машина/у меня (есть) машина/у меня будет машина (I had a care/I have a car/I will have a car)




I'm not convinced that all thoughts and interesting explanations are useful and fruitful. 'Zero copula' and 'zero verbal predicate' in Russian are relatively well-studied. Zero copula wasn't in use until XIV century as well as zero inflection. And it seems that these events are somewhat related - zero declensional inflection indicates nominative case, zero copula indicates present tense.






share|improve this answer










New contributor



Maxim Kuleshov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • The verbs you wrote - была, есть, будет - are not verbs of possession and generally mean was, is, and will be, respectively. In contrast to the Russians, most other Slavs express possession by using a verb of possession (analogous to "have") and no preposition at all: Mam samolot. Имам авион. Whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    In your examples for other Slavic languages don't have pronouns and verb takes function of pronoun. So in Russian 'у' is a preposition for a pronoun. Also in this example, 'была, есть, будет' play role of verbs of possession.

    – Maxim Kuleshov
    7 hours ago








  • 1





    Not at all. For example, in Polish you can as well say, Ja mam samolot. There is still no preposition in this phrase. The Poles usually omit the pronoun ja in such phrases because the latter is simply redundant - the ending of the verb already makes it clear that the speaker speaks about himself. It is the first person singular form of the verb. The Polish verb mieć is a verb of possession and is analogous to the English verb *have.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • The Russians, in contrast, use the verb быть, analogous to the English verb be, and the preposition y. The Poles have the same verb - być - but do not use it to express possession. To express possesson, they use mieć, which is analogous to the Russian verb иметь. And иметь is pretty rarely used by the Russians to express possession. I practically never saw expressions like я имею много дел, я имею машину, я имею вопрос. Instead, the Russians say, у меня (есть) много дел, у меня (есть) машина, у меня (есть) вопрос.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • So whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "451"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frussian.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f19683%2fwhy-do-russians-almost-not-use-verbs-of-possession-akin-to-have%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














First of all, a shameless plug of my earlier answer on why у does not quite mean "near" (but something more akin to the French chez, i.e. a place/household/domain notion used in the abstract.)



Secondly, I have a general impression that languages usually start out not having a verb for "to have", and then some evolve it and some don't. Entire language families (as far as I'm aware) do without it, such as Turkic or Semitic. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European of Schleicher's fable doesn't have it, and over all the massive updates it received through the years, no-one challenged the part where "sheep that had no wool" was expressed as "sheep to which wool was not".



Since not much is known about Proto-Slavic syntax and idiomatics, it's hard to make the claim that the у меня construction is older than the reflexes of *jьměti/*jьmati in West and South Slavic languages; у меня is also obviously not quite the same as the proposed Proto-Indo-European dative construction ("is to me"). However, what's fairly clear is that this verb started out with a more literal meaning ("to take") and that's pretty much how all Indo-European languages got their "have" verbs: they were all originally verbs for literal taking or holding. If we trace the history of Spanish all the way back to PIE, we can even see it happening twice. First there were the reflexes of the Latin habeo "hold", then Spanish relegated them to a purely auxiliary function and made tener (also "to hold") its "having" verb.



So in the end, apparently it's not how Russian has evolved; it's how other related languages have evolved and Russian stayed a little more conservative: while not keeping the oldest hypothesised construction, it settled on a similar one instead of the more radical and expressive "hold=>have" approach.






share|improve this answer


























  • A very intetesting answer. Do you have any hypothesis why Russian stayed more conservative?

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @Mitsuko Maybe an areal thing. Likely related to the copula-dropping (at least the two phenomena go together in Semitic and Turkic languages too); It could be that when the copula becomes mandatory, its existential meaning weakens, and expressions of the type "at/to me is(=exists)" are not as clear anymore.

    – Nikolay Ershov
    5 hours ago
















3














First of all, a shameless plug of my earlier answer on why у does not quite mean "near" (but something more akin to the French chez, i.e. a place/household/domain notion used in the abstract.)



Secondly, I have a general impression that languages usually start out not having a verb for "to have", and then some evolve it and some don't. Entire language families (as far as I'm aware) do without it, such as Turkic or Semitic. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European of Schleicher's fable doesn't have it, and over all the massive updates it received through the years, no-one challenged the part where "sheep that had no wool" was expressed as "sheep to which wool was not".



Since not much is known about Proto-Slavic syntax and idiomatics, it's hard to make the claim that the у меня construction is older than the reflexes of *jьměti/*jьmati in West and South Slavic languages; у меня is also obviously not quite the same as the proposed Proto-Indo-European dative construction ("is to me"). However, what's fairly clear is that this verb started out with a more literal meaning ("to take") and that's pretty much how all Indo-European languages got their "have" verbs: they were all originally verbs for literal taking or holding. If we trace the history of Spanish all the way back to PIE, we can even see it happening twice. First there were the reflexes of the Latin habeo "hold", then Spanish relegated them to a purely auxiliary function and made tener (also "to hold") its "having" verb.



So in the end, apparently it's not how Russian has evolved; it's how other related languages have evolved and Russian stayed a little more conservative: while not keeping the oldest hypothesised construction, it settled on a similar one instead of the more radical and expressive "hold=>have" approach.






share|improve this answer


























  • A very intetesting answer. Do you have any hypothesis why Russian stayed more conservative?

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @Mitsuko Maybe an areal thing. Likely related to the copula-dropping (at least the two phenomena go together in Semitic and Turkic languages too); It could be that when the copula becomes mandatory, its existential meaning weakens, and expressions of the type "at/to me is(=exists)" are not as clear anymore.

    – Nikolay Ershov
    5 hours ago














3












3








3







First of all, a shameless plug of my earlier answer on why у does not quite mean "near" (but something more akin to the French chez, i.e. a place/household/domain notion used in the abstract.)



Secondly, I have a general impression that languages usually start out not having a verb for "to have", and then some evolve it and some don't. Entire language families (as far as I'm aware) do without it, such as Turkic or Semitic. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European of Schleicher's fable doesn't have it, and over all the massive updates it received through the years, no-one challenged the part where "sheep that had no wool" was expressed as "sheep to which wool was not".



Since not much is known about Proto-Slavic syntax and idiomatics, it's hard to make the claim that the у меня construction is older than the reflexes of *jьměti/*jьmati in West and South Slavic languages; у меня is also obviously not quite the same as the proposed Proto-Indo-European dative construction ("is to me"). However, what's fairly clear is that this verb started out with a more literal meaning ("to take") and that's pretty much how all Indo-European languages got their "have" verbs: they were all originally verbs for literal taking or holding. If we trace the history of Spanish all the way back to PIE, we can even see it happening twice. First there were the reflexes of the Latin habeo "hold", then Spanish relegated them to a purely auxiliary function and made tener (also "to hold") its "having" verb.



So in the end, apparently it's not how Russian has evolved; it's how other related languages have evolved and Russian stayed a little more conservative: while not keeping the oldest hypothesised construction, it settled on a similar one instead of the more radical and expressive "hold=>have" approach.






share|improve this answer















First of all, a shameless plug of my earlier answer on why у does not quite mean "near" (but something more akin to the French chez, i.e. a place/household/domain notion used in the abstract.)



Secondly, I have a general impression that languages usually start out not having a verb for "to have", and then some evolve it and some don't. Entire language families (as far as I'm aware) do without it, such as Turkic or Semitic. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European of Schleicher's fable doesn't have it, and over all the massive updates it received through the years, no-one challenged the part where "sheep that had no wool" was expressed as "sheep to which wool was not".



Since not much is known about Proto-Slavic syntax and idiomatics, it's hard to make the claim that the у меня construction is older than the reflexes of *jьměti/*jьmati in West and South Slavic languages; у меня is also obviously not quite the same as the proposed Proto-Indo-European dative construction ("is to me"). However, what's fairly clear is that this verb started out with a more literal meaning ("to take") and that's pretty much how all Indo-European languages got their "have" verbs: they were all originally verbs for literal taking or holding. If we trace the history of Spanish all the way back to PIE, we can even see it happening twice. First there were the reflexes of the Latin habeo "hold", then Spanish relegated them to a purely auxiliary function and made tener (also "to hold") its "having" verb.



So in the end, apparently it's not how Russian has evolved; it's how other related languages have evolved and Russian stayed a little more conservative: while not keeping the oldest hypothesised construction, it settled on a similar one instead of the more radical and expressive "hold=>have" approach.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago

























answered 6 hours ago









Nikolay ErshovNikolay Ershov

16.7k22968




16.7k22968













  • A very intetesting answer. Do you have any hypothesis why Russian stayed more conservative?

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @Mitsuko Maybe an areal thing. Likely related to the copula-dropping (at least the two phenomena go together in Semitic and Turkic languages too); It could be that when the copula becomes mandatory, its existential meaning weakens, and expressions of the type "at/to me is(=exists)" are not as clear anymore.

    – Nikolay Ershov
    5 hours ago



















  • A very intetesting answer. Do you have any hypothesis why Russian stayed more conservative?

    – Mitsuko
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @Mitsuko Maybe an areal thing. Likely related to the copula-dropping (at least the two phenomena go together in Semitic and Turkic languages too); It could be that when the copula becomes mandatory, its existential meaning weakens, and expressions of the type "at/to me is(=exists)" are not as clear anymore.

    – Nikolay Ershov
    5 hours ago

















A very intetesting answer. Do you have any hypothesis why Russian stayed more conservative?

– Mitsuko
6 hours ago





A very intetesting answer. Do you have any hypothesis why Russian stayed more conservative?

– Mitsuko
6 hours ago




1




1





@Mitsuko Maybe an areal thing. Likely related to the copula-dropping (at least the two phenomena go together in Semitic and Turkic languages too); It could be that when the copula becomes mandatory, its existential meaning weakens, and expressions of the type "at/to me is(=exists)" are not as clear anymore.

– Nikolay Ershov
5 hours ago





@Mitsuko Maybe an areal thing. Likely related to the copula-dropping (at least the two phenomena go together in Semitic and Turkic languages too); It could be that when the copula becomes mandatory, its existential meaning weakens, and expressions of the type "at/to me is(=exists)" are not as clear anymore.

– Nikolay Ershov
5 hours ago











1














'Near' has nothing to do with 'zero copula' (that's what you tried to explain). In modern Russian it is presented in past/future tense and, in some cases, present/can be added in tense:




У меня была машина/у меня (есть) машина/у меня будет машина (I had a care/I have a car/I will have a car)




I'm not convinced that all thoughts and interesting explanations are useful and fruitful. 'Zero copula' and 'zero verbal predicate' in Russian are relatively well-studied. Zero copula wasn't in use until XIV century as well as zero inflection. And it seems that these events are somewhat related - zero declensional inflection indicates nominative case, zero copula indicates present tense.






share|improve this answer










New contributor



Maxim Kuleshov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • The verbs you wrote - была, есть, будет - are not verbs of possession and generally mean was, is, and will be, respectively. In contrast to the Russians, most other Slavs express possession by using a verb of possession (analogous to "have") and no preposition at all: Mam samolot. Имам авион. Whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    In your examples for other Slavic languages don't have pronouns and verb takes function of pronoun. So in Russian 'у' is a preposition for a pronoun. Also in this example, 'была, есть, будет' play role of verbs of possession.

    – Maxim Kuleshov
    7 hours ago








  • 1





    Not at all. For example, in Polish you can as well say, Ja mam samolot. There is still no preposition in this phrase. The Poles usually omit the pronoun ja in such phrases because the latter is simply redundant - the ending of the verb already makes it clear that the speaker speaks about himself. It is the first person singular form of the verb. The Polish verb mieć is a verb of possession and is analogous to the English verb *have.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • The Russians, in contrast, use the verb быть, analogous to the English verb be, and the preposition y. The Poles have the same verb - być - but do not use it to express possession. To express possesson, they use mieć, which is analogous to the Russian verb иметь. And иметь is pretty rarely used by the Russians to express possession. I practically never saw expressions like я имею много дел, я имею машину, я имею вопрос. Instead, the Russians say, у меня (есть) много дел, у меня (есть) машина, у меня (есть) вопрос.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • So whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago
















1














'Near' has nothing to do with 'zero copula' (that's what you tried to explain). In modern Russian it is presented in past/future tense and, in some cases, present/can be added in tense:




У меня была машина/у меня (есть) машина/у меня будет машина (I had a care/I have a car/I will have a car)




I'm not convinced that all thoughts and interesting explanations are useful and fruitful. 'Zero copula' and 'zero verbal predicate' in Russian are relatively well-studied. Zero copula wasn't in use until XIV century as well as zero inflection. And it seems that these events are somewhat related - zero declensional inflection indicates nominative case, zero copula indicates present tense.






share|improve this answer










New contributor



Maxim Kuleshov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • The verbs you wrote - была, есть, будет - are not verbs of possession and generally mean was, is, and will be, respectively. In contrast to the Russians, most other Slavs express possession by using a verb of possession (analogous to "have") and no preposition at all: Mam samolot. Имам авион. Whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    In your examples for other Slavic languages don't have pronouns and verb takes function of pronoun. So in Russian 'у' is a preposition for a pronoun. Also in this example, 'была, есть, будет' play role of verbs of possession.

    – Maxim Kuleshov
    7 hours ago








  • 1





    Not at all. For example, in Polish you can as well say, Ja mam samolot. There is still no preposition in this phrase. The Poles usually omit the pronoun ja in such phrases because the latter is simply redundant - the ending of the verb already makes it clear that the speaker speaks about himself. It is the first person singular form of the verb. The Polish verb mieć is a verb of possession and is analogous to the English verb *have.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • The Russians, in contrast, use the verb быть, analogous to the English verb be, and the preposition y. The Poles have the same verb - być - but do not use it to express possession. To express possesson, they use mieć, which is analogous to the Russian verb иметь. And иметь is pretty rarely used by the Russians to express possession. I practically never saw expressions like я имею много дел, я имею машину, я имею вопрос. Instead, the Russians say, у меня (есть) много дел, у меня (есть) машина, у меня (есть) вопрос.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • So whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago














1












1








1







'Near' has nothing to do with 'zero copula' (that's what you tried to explain). In modern Russian it is presented in past/future tense and, in some cases, present/can be added in tense:




У меня была машина/у меня (есть) машина/у меня будет машина (I had a care/I have a car/I will have a car)




I'm not convinced that all thoughts and interesting explanations are useful and fruitful. 'Zero copula' and 'zero verbal predicate' in Russian are relatively well-studied. Zero copula wasn't in use until XIV century as well as zero inflection. And it seems that these events are somewhat related - zero declensional inflection indicates nominative case, zero copula indicates present tense.






share|improve this answer










New contributor



Maxim Kuleshov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









'Near' has nothing to do with 'zero copula' (that's what you tried to explain). In modern Russian it is presented in past/future tense and, in some cases, present/can be added in tense:




У меня была машина/у меня (есть) машина/у меня будет машина (I had a care/I have a car/I will have a car)




I'm not convinced that all thoughts and interesting explanations are useful and fruitful. 'Zero copula' and 'zero verbal predicate' in Russian are relatively well-studied. Zero copula wasn't in use until XIV century as well as zero inflection. And it seems that these events are somewhat related - zero declensional inflection indicates nominative case, zero copula indicates present tense.







share|improve this answer










New contributor



Maxim Kuleshov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 7 hours ago





















New contributor



Maxim Kuleshov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








answered 7 hours ago









Maxim KuleshovMaxim Kuleshov

1115




1115




New contributor



Maxim Kuleshov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Maxim Kuleshov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • The verbs you wrote - была, есть, будет - are not verbs of possession and generally mean was, is, and will be, respectively. In contrast to the Russians, most other Slavs express possession by using a verb of possession (analogous to "have") and no preposition at all: Mam samolot. Имам авион. Whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    In your examples for other Slavic languages don't have pronouns and verb takes function of pronoun. So in Russian 'у' is a preposition for a pronoun. Also in this example, 'была, есть, будет' play role of verbs of possession.

    – Maxim Kuleshov
    7 hours ago








  • 1





    Not at all. For example, in Polish you can as well say, Ja mam samolot. There is still no preposition in this phrase. The Poles usually omit the pronoun ja in such phrases because the latter is simply redundant - the ending of the verb already makes it clear that the speaker speaks about himself. It is the first person singular form of the verb. The Polish verb mieć is a verb of possession and is analogous to the English verb *have.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • The Russians, in contrast, use the verb быть, analogous to the English verb be, and the preposition y. The Poles have the same verb - być - but do not use it to express possession. To express possesson, they use mieć, which is analogous to the Russian verb иметь. And иметь is pretty rarely used by the Russians to express possession. I practically never saw expressions like я имею много дел, я имею машину, я имею вопрос. Instead, the Russians say, у меня (есть) много дел, у меня (есть) машина, у меня (есть) вопрос.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • So whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago



















  • The verbs you wrote - была, есть, будет - are not verbs of possession and generally mean was, is, and will be, respectively. In contrast to the Russians, most other Slavs express possession by using a verb of possession (analogous to "have") and no preposition at all: Mam samolot. Имам авион. Whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    In your examples for other Slavic languages don't have pronouns and verb takes function of pronoun. So in Russian 'у' is a preposition for a pronoun. Also in this example, 'была, есть, будет' play role of verbs of possession.

    – Maxim Kuleshov
    7 hours ago








  • 1





    Not at all. For example, in Polish you can as well say, Ja mam samolot. There is still no preposition in this phrase. The Poles usually omit the pronoun ja in such phrases because the latter is simply redundant - the ending of the verb already makes it clear that the speaker speaks about himself. It is the first person singular form of the verb. The Polish verb mieć is a verb of possession and is analogous to the English verb *have.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • The Russians, in contrast, use the verb быть, analogous to the English verb be, and the preposition y. The Poles have the same verb - być - but do not use it to express possession. To express possesson, they use mieć, which is analogous to the Russian verb иметь. And иметь is pretty rarely used by the Russians to express possession. I practically never saw expressions like я имею много дел, я имею машину, я имею вопрос. Instead, the Russians say, у меня (есть) много дел, у меня (есть) машина, у меня (есть) вопрос.

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago













  • So whence cometh the difference?

    – Mitsuko
    7 hours ago

















The verbs you wrote - была, есть, будет - are not verbs of possession and generally mean was, is, and will be, respectively. In contrast to the Russians, most other Slavs express possession by using a verb of possession (analogous to "have") and no preposition at all: Mam samolot. Имам авион. Whence cometh the difference?

– Mitsuko
7 hours ago





The verbs you wrote - была, есть, будет - are not verbs of possession and generally mean was, is, and will be, respectively. In contrast to the Russians, most other Slavs express possession by using a verb of possession (analogous to "have") and no preposition at all: Mam samolot. Имам авион. Whence cometh the difference?

– Mitsuko
7 hours ago




1




1





In your examples for other Slavic languages don't have pronouns and verb takes function of pronoun. So in Russian 'у' is a preposition for a pronoun. Also in this example, 'была, есть, будет' play role of verbs of possession.

– Maxim Kuleshov
7 hours ago







In your examples for other Slavic languages don't have pronouns and verb takes function of pronoun. So in Russian 'у' is a preposition for a pronoun. Also in this example, 'была, есть, будет' play role of verbs of possession.

– Maxim Kuleshov
7 hours ago






1




1





Not at all. For example, in Polish you can as well say, Ja mam samolot. There is still no preposition in this phrase. The Poles usually omit the pronoun ja in such phrases because the latter is simply redundant - the ending of the verb already makes it clear that the speaker speaks about himself. It is the first person singular form of the verb. The Polish verb mieć is a verb of possession and is analogous to the English verb *have.

– Mitsuko
7 hours ago







Not at all. For example, in Polish you can as well say, Ja mam samolot. There is still no preposition in this phrase. The Poles usually omit the pronoun ja in such phrases because the latter is simply redundant - the ending of the verb already makes it clear that the speaker speaks about himself. It is the first person singular form of the verb. The Polish verb mieć is a verb of possession and is analogous to the English verb *have.

– Mitsuko
7 hours ago















The Russians, in contrast, use the verb быть, analogous to the English verb be, and the preposition y. The Poles have the same verb - być - but do not use it to express possession. To express possesson, they use mieć, which is analogous to the Russian verb иметь. And иметь is pretty rarely used by the Russians to express possession. I practically never saw expressions like я имею много дел, я имею машину, я имею вопрос. Instead, the Russians say, у меня (есть) много дел, у меня (есть) машина, у меня (есть) вопрос.

– Mitsuko
7 hours ago







The Russians, in contrast, use the verb быть, analogous to the English verb be, and the preposition y. The Poles have the same verb - być - but do not use it to express possession. To express possesson, they use mieć, which is analogous to the Russian verb иметь. And иметь is pretty rarely used by the Russians to express possession. I practically never saw expressions like я имею много дел, я имею машину, я имею вопрос. Instead, the Russians say, у меня (есть) много дел, у меня (есть) машина, у меня (есть) вопрос.

– Mitsuko
7 hours ago















So whence cometh the difference?

– Mitsuko
7 hours ago





So whence cometh the difference?

– Mitsuko
7 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Russian Language Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frussian.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f19683%2fwhy-do-russians-almost-not-use-verbs-of-possession-akin-to-have%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...