Re: "to be" and not to be in the world's languages

Elliott Lash wrote:

| yes, the paradigm was/is:
|
| jesm'  jesmy
| jesi   jeste
| jest'  sut'
|
| -elliottt

Exactly. And rather was than is, because non-3rd pers. sounds pretty
archaic, e.g. in the Synodal Bible (the most popular Russian version, 1876):
John 14:6 "Ja jesm' Put' i Istina i Zhizn'".

=====================

Stephen Mulraney wrote:

| I'm curious about the Ukrainian one, too :)

Well, Ukrainian lost everything except _je_ for all persons and numbers,
AFAIK. In an archaic style one can find _jesI_ for 2sn, but it's bookish...

=====================

Rob Haden wrote:

| Yes, you could be right.  Russian still does have a verb for "be":
| infinitive _byt'_, 3sg pres. _jest'_, past _byl(a/o)_, etc.

And full-fleshed paradygm in Future: _budu_, _budesh_, _budet_ etc.

=====================

He also adds:

| Russian actually has two declensions for "to be" in the present tense.
(...)
| However, this declension is rarely used today except for the 3rd-person
| singular, with the meaning "there is"

Not necessary. Also, there is a regular copula verb _javljat'sja_, e.g. _Eta
detal' javljajetsja chast'ju dvigatelja_. "This detail is a part of the
engine".

| There is
| also a second, more regular declension, with the stem _bud-_:
|
| 1s budu
| 2s budjesh'
| 3s budjet
| 1p budjem
| 2p budjetje
| 3p budut

Ok. But though it is present by form, it is clearly Future in meaning. All
grammars list it as Future.

| The infinitive for both is _byt'_, from Indo-European *beuxtis.
|
| >I'm curious about the Ukrainian one, too :)
|
| The Ukrainian is similar (if not the same) as the Russian, except the
| infinitive is _bit'_ (_y_ merged with _i_ in Ukrainian, IIRC).

Indeed, Ru. [i] and [i\] merged in Uk. [I], but _bItI_ is an inf. for "to
bit" (Ru. _bit'_), while "to be" in Uk. is reinforced from the future stem,
and is _butI_.

-- Yitzik