• Lauchs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      “To be” averbs, at least in romance languages usually have a bunch of different forms. “To have” usually too but English is a bit of an exception there.

    • WFH@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      “To be” being highly irregular il a common feature of a lot of Indo-European languages. But there’s worse. In Spanish, “ser” and “estar” both mean “to be”, but have wildly different meanings and cannot be substituted for one another.

    • viralJ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      “be” is an irregular verb in all languages, so it’s not unique to English. Bonus fun fact: Russian doesn’t have the verb “to be”.

      • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yes, and I feel like it’s even more irregular in Russian than just not existing. It’s not used in present tense as a copula, so in most cases where you would expect it in English. However it absolutely exists – быть – and is used like normal verbs in both past and future tense.

        For example: «я здесь» – “I am here” (same word order, but this sentence has no verb), but «я был здесь» – “I was here”

        And in the cases where it is used in present tense, there is a single conjugation regardless of subject: есть (in contrast to all other verbs, I assume at least, which all have distinct conjugations for 1/2/3rd person singular/plural).

        A simple example for this would probably be sentences with “there is”, affirming the existence of something, as in “there is a bathroom” – «ванная есть». Contrived example for sure but I can’t think of something better right now.

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Was going to reply that, it’s not that Russian doesn’t have it, it just gets omitted in the most common form.

          But also one interesting thing is that from the examples you gave I can know your gender, because the verb to be is gendered in the past in Russian, which is very unique, I don’t know of any other language where verbs are gendered.

      • kureta@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Not in Turkish. It is “olmak” but the actual “to be” as it is used in “I am, they were, etc.” is, now unused “imek”. it has become a suffix and it is completely regular. Just i + person suffix.

    • Phen@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      And it has multiple meanings. “you are sick” can mean that you’re currently sick but can also mean that you’re a sick person. Other languages usually differentiate the verb in those two cases