Have you met many foreigners? in Spanish 🇪🇸

Haber is said to mean “have” yet not in the case of existential indicatives (
“there are”/”hay”)
Further, I read that the endings of the future tense derive from the present tense conjugations of haber.
I feel it might be more appropriate to consider haber a third form of “to be”. And I feel there is evidence to suggest this might have been the case archaically.
Perhaps someone who knows latin can share their input.
“I am to go there” is still a valid but exceedily rare way to indicate a future activity of going: he ir ahi/ ire ahi.
If anything this perspective makes it considerably easier to learn. This different perspective of “haber” is similar to the manner of veering from the rule of thumb that par and para mean “for”.

On a side note:

For the latin speaker (preferably a linguist), is it that some source word for haber perhaps conotated “to be” specifically in regards to tangibles verse abstracts?

Spanish speakers’ what does a spanish published etymology book say about this?

2 years ago

Hermanotrois, this is meant to be a good hearted advice… I think you can get your point across with simpler english terms and not use highly elaborate words with bad english grammar (caused by the phone typing as you said). I may not be advanced enough to help you with your questions but I’d also like to gain knowledge and enjoy to have an easy read of the ideas you’re sharing with us, but I barely understood what you wanted to tell us.

I like though that you are making so much efforts sharing your thoughts with us!

As I said I am a beginner but I wouldn’t get to stuck on trying to find a definite translation to some words.
Sometimes the meaning of some words only start to make sense when they are combined with other words that are common used phrases you would not be able to translate in your own language.
Those you just have to learn by heart which usually becomes very easy once you are in the country and use the phrase daily.

I actually haven’t connected “hay” with he word “haber” until I read your comment.

I saw “haber” as an auxiliary verb creating a tense with a main verb.
Yo he ido – I have gone.
Maybe in some languages you wouldn’t even translate the verb into “have” used in this context because the other language has another way to conjugate “go” and does not even use “haber” to express the same time circumstances.
Different languages have different amount of tenses you can use to express a time circumstance.
Spanish is one of the languages that has one of the most tenses.
I think someone told me they have 17 tenses (correct if the number is wrong or I will correct in the future.) whereas English has a lot less.

So maybe instead of finding a correct translation try to understand when you use this type of tense.
(i.e. When do I use
Yo he ido – I have gone
And when
Yo fuí – I went?

Yo haya ido (again another type of tense)
etc.)

I read some examples with “hay”.
As far as I can see “hay” fullfills a whole different purpose.
It’s not used to indicate a tense.

It’s used to basically point out something without being personal.
It’s used as an impersonal third person for singular and plural nouns.

Hay una serpiente en la playa. – > there is a snake on the beach.

To highlight is “haber” is not translated into “to be” in this case.
It only works in third person and it’s the combination of “there + is” or “there + are”
There is no better translation.

You just gotta learn it.

In summary: so far we have learned the verb “Haber” has at least two different purposes that have nothing to with each other and that’s why we have two different translations.
It is used in context with other words and doesn’t make sense on its own.

Keep in mind we only translate words to make them understandable in our own language not because they have the same exact meaning (or just one meaning because they do it in ours)

2 years ago

We do use the conjugation of haber onto the future endings of the infinitive verbs!

The latin for ‘to have’ is habere, which is the etymological origin of the verb haber!

2 years ago

In English “I am to go there” doesn’t make sense and nor does “he ire ahi”. It would be “he ido por ahí” or “iré ahí”.

I still think thinking of haber as a different form of the english “have” but for everything EXCEPT possession is the best way to go about.

(Things like tengo hambre, tengo sed y tengo 20 años are a bit more irregular and require thinking of posssssing hunger, thirst and an age!)

2 years ago

The gerund in your first example refers to iendo/ando words, not ido. I assume “i fi jtive” means “infinitive”?

2 years ago

I hope that clarifies my question and insight.

I know my comments usually lack grammar and spell check and might create some confussion.

These ****ed smart phones make it hard to type and perhaps I have gotten a little lazy.

Again, apologies for typos, but I find it tedious typing properly with this small screen but plan on getting a bluetooth keyboard at some point.

Thank you for your understanding and input.

2 years ago

To better explaine my inquiry:

I was simply trying to understand the totality of haber’s use in a coherent sequitor manner.

I was speculating and infering in hopes that someone who has studied ancient origins of words might have an input.
(I have spent considerable time doing this for english, and it has greatly helped my perspicuity and perspicacity.)

Now,

One issue I missed is “ancient” is actually rather broad and covers a considetably long period of time.

Latin itself has medieval latin, vulgar (mid to late new roman kingdom), classical, and ancient (early first roman kingdom and a little prior). Each of these are centuries long and have linguistic developments themselves.

None of this even discusses grecian and proto etruscan origins and influences.

I also find online sources, now a days, and online references, considerably glib and nonsequitor. Searching for this word alone exemplified that. But perhaps some of that is explained by the fact I am using an english search engine, predicting I want english results, and designed by a corporate machine to profit from advertising, itself ….whatever. you get the point.

And though I reference a forum, most other comments follow the form of irrational, unbacked guessing.

Personally, I mostly prefer primary, secondary, tertiary, and (in a pinch) quarternary/quarnary sources.
So, when I asked for linguist I was specifically referencing people who might have read Adam’s or Lanchester’s book, or something like it, or came across this situation in graduate studies.

Finally in regards to a desire and ease of learning, I was using my perspective as a basis for identifying a solution to a problem which I felt others might have: that is consistency in interpretation of the word and conjugations of “haber”.

2 years ago

In regards to my comments about “haber”, “he ide algo” et al:

I have read a couple of other sources, in form, quality and believability on the “stackexchange” reference above. They directly quote some text from a book I will reference below, and display an understanding, though unsettled, on the matter.
Specifically, they discuss an archaic syntax for the future tense, in which the present of haber was placed after the infinitive.

So when I wrote, “he ire ahi”, the ahi was affixed with limited spanish knowledge but indicated the concept of a future.
It was meant for expository purposes only.

“ire” has an extra “e” typo.

“he ir por ahi” I suppose would be the most proper manner in which I should have written.

Futher I just learned how to add accent marks.

So, back to the point, this would have been, archaically, ir hè por aqui (pressuming “por” was used contemporaneously with this gramatical structure, with the meaning it has today.).

This became truncated to “irè”, and you will notice all endings to the future tense are basically all the present tense forms of “haber”.

As you noted, as is in french and in english “have” plus infinitive can be used, in that order.

So too in spanish, the inverse of the archaic is still used but much more rarely. (“at least that is what I heard. You seem to have seen it, too.)

2 years ago

To start, perhaps I’ve mis-expressed myself.

I’ve had a tendency in the past to delve into specifics and have been trying to be more glib in general.

To preface: I have read a considerbale amount of english text from the 1400’s to present. From Beowolf, to Thomas Moore’s Utopia’ to 19th century letters to Harry Potter.

“Be” + infinitive to indicate future action IS a perfectly valid expression of the future tense.

“I am to go” does make sense, has been used and most recently was used in the title of a book:

Jeremy Vaeni
I am to tell you this and I am to tell you its fiction
-September 12, 2020

Another example would be the Fifth letter of Horace Walpole, circa. 17**

-“for I am to dine to-morrow at the Bishop of London’s a …”

I normally don’t like discussion threads as they tend to be inundated with hear-say horse **** and nonsequitor reasoning.
That said, a believable explanation (quarternary source?) of this particular conjugation is explained on stackexchange.com :

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/67952/i-am-to-vs-i-have-to#:~:text=means%20obligation%20due%20to%20previous,obligation%2Ftask%20to%20inform%20you.

The best one discusses the linguistic, qualitative specifications of “shall”, “ought”, “will” , etc. and I very much recommend reading it as a starting point for better, more specific self-expression in english.
It is also a good starting point for finding better sources.

2 years ago

Now, to the point about the origins haber, and why “there is” is conjugated the way it is:

A start is Morfología del verbo castellano by Rufino Lanchetas, which was published in 1897

and

chapter 24 -past participle + habeo, from Part 5 – Aspects of Verbal Morphology and Syntax by J.N. Adams

However I have limited access to these.

But it seems historical existential expression and origins of haber has been a consideration amoung linguist, though the possesive nature of the word can be traced, in some conjugations, to the late republic, one of which is said to be habeō.

There is also a consideration that “y” in some conjugations dervies from an “i” associated with “ici” for at that spot/there”.

In a sense “there is” conjugations could be viewed as saying “that spot ‘holds'” a certain trait or qualification, or there exists a state at some figurative application of “that spot”/”there”.

And this kind of helps my understanding.

It does not address if the origins of haber ever derived from other forms of “to be” or if it ever soley functioned as “to be”, but this isn’t that important I suppose.

In some regards, I could understand “have” as an existential descriptor of action at a place, place considered temporally, I suppose.

In some manner I suppose verbs in general could be viewed as a glorified subset of nouns, with consideration of a concrete version changing over time in relation to each other, but that is likely too eruditic and abstract for the manner at hand, or any mental-clarity functionality

2 years ago

Tanta palabreria se debe a que aun no entienden bien el español una vez dicho esto las expresiones HE IRE AHI, HE IDO AHI o IRE POR AHI son validas solo que en distintos contextos por lo tanto hay que saber cuando usarlas

2 years ago

I am working to express the depth and breadth I want to share succintly using simpler terminology and non-complex sentence syntax.

I normally revert to the above when I have failed.

Your view, however is quite popular, but I cannot completely agree with it.

I feel there is a reason beyond arrogance and pretension that such syntax and vocabulary exist.

At the risk of coming off curt or aggressive, I’d like to say the following:

First I respect and value your opinion.
I only use the following exageration for emphasis and fun.

Secondly, I can’t see Hume, Locke, Kant … expressing what they had to say with emoji’s.
I can also not imagine certain advanced mathamatical conceptualizations expressed in **** and Jane terminolgy without losing considerable substance while also grossly inflating the word count.

Without much detail, I feel that complacency in specifc choice of words in english can be bad.

Laissez Faire is a prime example of a lack of attention to detail.
It means “let it work/do”.
Smith also said “laissez passé”, which IS what means “let it be”.
I french class my teacher stated the common incorrect french expression for “let it be”.
I feel it is a problem when a lack of lexigraphical attention-to-detail leads to a french teacher misteaching french.

But maybe my military experience reinforced an interest in specifics.

Now granted, words are primarily meant to share ideas with other people.

And I definitely felt, reading your comment, that there is a good deal I can learn from you.
I also liked your insight on the expression “I went”, and I believe I recall seeing that “fui” type words also mean “go” AND “was”! OMG WTF! 😀

I suppose the big issue is I’ve been exposed more to the former complex idea transmission than otherwise.

I think the main issue might fall on identifying what actually needs to be shared.

I was learning Shakespearean etymology in the 5th grade.
Btw, everyone at that point seemed to despise punctuation.
I believe they threw their punctuation on the flames with their witches. 😀

But I don’t know. Maybe I’m somewhere on the autistic spectrum. 🙁

If you watch Brooklyn Nine-Nine, I suppose my nature would be an combo of Diez, Holt, and Peralta.

Regardless, I’ll tone it down a few decibles.

Thank you for your input.

2 years ago

I am mildly curious. If I might step on a limb here, how might you have phrased some of the concepts?

2 years ago