Oct 29, 2015 20:38
8 yrs ago
Polish term
Etymology of the verb to be, być
Polish to English
Other
Linguistics
etymology
Hello,
Not a translation question, but one of language history.
I recently learned that the Polish for "to be" is być, and the verb conjugates in the present active as:
Jestem jesteśmy
jesteś jesteście
jest są
Which raises various questions:
Does it consist in a combination of different verbal forms?
For example, the present tense of to be in English comes from 2 verbs: 'be' from PIE *bheue-, and 'am' from PIE *esmi-. the past, 'was' comes from yet another: PIE *wes-
So I'm curious as to Polish. Is 'być' one verb, Jestem (etc.) and są two others?
Or is there a line of descent that obscures the original, as in Latin 'to be' for example:
Ancient Latin → Classical Latin → English
Esum → sum → I am
Esis → es → you are, etc.
Thanks for any help!
Not a translation question, but one of language history.
I recently learned that the Polish for "to be" is być, and the verb conjugates in the present active as:
Jestem jesteśmy
jesteś jesteście
jest są
Which raises various questions:
Does it consist in a combination of different verbal forms?
For example, the present tense of to be in English comes from 2 verbs: 'be' from PIE *bheue-, and 'am' from PIE *esmi-. the past, 'was' comes from yet another: PIE *wes-
So I'm curious as to Polish. Is 'być' one verb, Jestem (etc.) and są two others?
Or is there a line of descent that obscures the original, as in Latin 'to be' for example:
Ancient Latin → Classical Latin → English
Esum → sum → I am
Esis → es → you are, etc.
Thanks for any help!
Proposed translations
(English)
| 5 +3 | explained below |
Lota
|
Proposed translations
+3
11 mins
Selected
explained below
Perhaps you know that in many IE languages the verb "to be" is highly irregular. The etymology is not completely clear, however, the form "są" is a suppletive form that is present in many other IE languages. The form "są" has been present in Polish since the proto-Slavic language. You can compare it with other non-Slavic forms such as French "sont" and German "sind" and Latin - "sunt". This form did not develop directly from "być" but rather, is suppletive.
I hope it helps. Contact me directly please if you have other questions.
I hope it helps. Contact me directly please if you have other questions.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D.
: Very informative.
15 mins
|
|
Thanks, MJ.
|
|
| agree |
Darius Saczuk
: Very edifying.
50 mins
|
|
thank you!
|
|
| agree |
George BuLah (X)
: Splendidly delivered!
1 hr
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
Discussion
Thanks you for your very informative answer, and please accept my apologies for the slow reply (currently in between two homes involving lots of traveling..., I also seem to have email issues :o( ).
I'm proofing a book on the French language and the present issue
revolves around something else.
Yes, basic words are the most aberrant in many languages (one man, two men but one human, two humans; one goose, two geese; un œil, deux yeux; minema, lähen (Estonian ‘to go’, ‘I go’, etc...).
What I’m particularly looking for here are the original verbs. It seems that być comes from a verb meaning ‘to exist / occur / take place’, while the jest forms are like English, Latin, etc., from PIE *h₁es- ‘be’. But what about są?
Any help on that would be much appreciated!
Best regards
Simon