Translations of "to be".

[Legion]

Languages frequently contrast 4 different forms where English use only "to be" (note: I know there are more contrasts possible than that but bear with me here).

1) Copula, linking a noun with another noun (or sometimes an adjective, depending on the language):
"The dog is an animal."

2) Substantive verb, linking the noun with an adverb or a prepositional phrase.
"The dog is in the garden."

3) Existential verb, impling the existence of the noun in some place:
"There is a dog in the garden."

4) Presentative verb, introducing the noun:
"Here is a dog."

English use the same verb for all 4, but has special structures for 3 and 4.

Contrast with Latin:
1) "Canis animal est."
2) "Canis in horto est."
3) "Canis in horto est."
4) "Ecce canis."

1/2/3 are not contrastive, but 4 has a special form

Now French:
1) "Le chien est un animal."
2) "Le chien est dans le jardin."
3) "Il y a un chien dans le jardin."
4) "Voici un chien."

1/2 not contrastive, but 3/4 use different verbs and special structures.

Spanish:
1) "El perro es un animal."
2) "El perro está en el jardín."
3) "Hay un perro en el jardín."
4) "Aquí es un perro."

1/2/3 contrastive, 4 uses a special structure but the same verb than 1.

Italian:
1) "Il cane è un animale."
2) "Il cane è in giardino."
3) "C'è un cane in giardino."
4) "Ecco un cane."

1/2 not contrastive, 3 special structure but same verb, 4 special structure.

So well now, let's see how other languages handle this, post examples in the natlangs you know.

[Yng]

We've already discussed this on IRC, but anyway:

In Welsh there are, very very roughly speaking, the same four categories listed there - except that the presentative has some very particle-like qualities (and is probably ultimately derived from the substantive) and the other three are collapsed into one verb for the most part, except in the very salient case of the third person present, varying by syntactic context - and even then there is no three-way distinction.

In verb initial position, the three are merged in the declarative but not in the interrogative or negative:

Declarative:
Mae hi'n drist - she is sad (copula).
Mae hi ar y bws - she is on the bus (substantive).
Mae cath yn y gegin - there is a cat in the kitchen (existential).

In colloquial Welsh, some dialects have mae 'na, literally 'there is', by analogy with the English construction, but the 'na is effectively a meaningless adverb and does not affect the form of the verb.

Interrogative:
Ydy hi'n drist? - is she sad?
Ydy hi ar y bws? - is she on the bus?
Oes cath yn y gegin? - is there a cat in the kitchen?

Negative:
Dydy hi ddim yn drist - she isn't sad.
Dydy hi ddim ar y bws - she isn't on the bus.
Does dim cath yn y gegin - there is no cat in the kitchen.

As you can see, there is no distinction between the copula and substantive here. However, with a fronted element, things change:

Trist ydy hi - she is sad.
Ar y bws mae hi - she is on the bus.
Yn y gegin mae cath - there is a cat in the kitchen.

The distinction was apparently clearer in Middle Welsh, where the prefix yd- (now dialectal - some dialects have w i for the 1ps, from wyf i, some have dw i, from ydwyf i) apparently marked the substantive in some syntactic contexts (or the copula, possibly - anyway, it marked one of them).

[Ser]

YngNghymru is totally right that the copulae can change depending on whether they're negated or the sentence is a question in some languages (although not in Spanish). Would you also be interested in those?

Spanish:
1) "El perro es un animal."
2) "El perro está en el jardín."
3) "Hay un perro en el jardín."
4) "Aquí es un perro."

1/2/3 contrastive, 4 uses a special structure but the same verb than 1.

4) is wrong, it should be estar: aquí está un perro, using the same verb as in 2).

[Legion]

YngNghymru is totally right that these can change depending on whether they're negated or a question in some languages (although not in Spanish). Would you also be interested in those?

Yes.

4) is wrong, it should be estar: aquí está un perro, using the same verb as in 2).

That'll teach me to trust google translate even for basic sentences.

[zompist]

2) "Canis in horto est."
3) "Canis in horto est."

These are grammatical, but I think the pragmatic difference would likely be expressed as follows:

2) Canis in horto.
3) In horto canis.

I think I'd also translate (2) in Italian as

2) Il cane sta nel giardino.

Well, unless you're talking about a stone dog...

[zompist]

In Russian (I hope; corrections welcome):

1) Собака животное.
2) Собака в саду.
3) В саду собака.
4. Вот собака.

The omitted verb in 1-3 is быть.

[Radius Solis]

4) Presentative verb, introducing the noun:
"Here is a dog."

I don't know if this matters to you here, but the English presentative construction can use a number of different verbs, depending on what is being said. Which isn't always to introduce a noun. The following are also all presentatives:

Here comes my bus.
"Yes", said the doctor.
There goes all my money.
...when up came this guy asking for spare change.
Pop Goes the Weasel (title of a children's song)

[ná'oolkiłí]

Georgian:

1) ძაღლი ცხოველია / jağli cxovelia
2) ძაღლი ეზოშია / jağli ezošia
3) (იქ) ძაღლი ეზოშია / (ik) jağli ezošia
4) აი ძაღლი / ai jağli

The -a in 1-3 is the enclitic form of არის / aris "is"; -ši is the clitic postposition "in". I believe 2 and 3 are usually the same, but an იქ / ik "there" can be added to emphasize existentialness.

[tubragg]

Swedish handles it much like English:

1) "Hunden är ett djur."

2) "Hunden är i trädgården."

3) "Det är (/finns) en hund i trädgården."

4) "Här är en hund."

[Ser]

I don't know if this matters to you here, but the English presentative construction can use a number of different verbs, depending on what is being said. Which isn't always to introduce a noun. The following are also all presentatives:

Here comes my bus.
"Yes", said the doctor.
There goes all my money.
...when up came this guy asking for spare change.
Pop Goes the Weasel (title of a children's song)

How is the second one a presentative construction? And I'm very unfamiliar with the last two. What is that "up" doing there? Is it part of the verb, as in "to understand", i.e. "to up come"?

Since you raised that point, for the presentative construction in Spanish, you could also use tener 'to have': aquí tienes el perro, literally 'here you have the dog'.

You can also use "to have" in English, isn't it?

[Dewrad]

2) "Canis in horto est."
3) "Canis in horto est."

These are grammatical, but I think the pragmatic difference would likely be expressed as follows:

2) Canis in horto.
3) In horto canis.

I think I'd also translate (2) in Italian as

2) Il cane sta nel giardino.

Well, unless you're talking about a stone dog...

I dunno here actually. Pending native speaker input, my impression of the Italian stare/essere distinction is that it isn't the same as the Spanish estar/ser contrast. While el perro es en el jardin sounds very wrong, to my (admittedly non-native) ears il cane è nel giardino doesn't sound at all unacceptable (è nel giardino, il cane sounds vaguely more idiomatic to me though.)

[Mecislau]

Copulae in Russian are actually extremely problematic, mostly due to the fact that there are so many potential ways to express them. Russian certainly has far more than just four ways of expressing being...

1) Собака животное.

This sounds a little off to me (though it might just be me). In this sort of "assigning a definition"-type sentence I'd rather use of the following:

Собака — это животное. (using это as a stand-in copula)
Собака является животным. (using the verb являться)

2) Собака в саду.
3) В саду собака.

Both of these sound fine, but be aware that they're highly context-sensitive. That is, I could easily see "В саду собака" meaning both "The dog is in the garden" and "There is a dog in the garden", depending on context (although "Собака в саду" is harder to pull an extential meaning from).

Regarding #3, in other cases, especially when the thing that is existing is not animate, you can stick in есть to make it clear you're dealing with an existencial sentence. Using есть here makes me think of it more like a permanent fixture, like a statue or something.

Also note that when dealing with locations like in #2, Russian will often prefer using a more specific verb indicating position: стоять "stand", лежить "lie", висеть "hang", сидеть "sit", находиться "be located", etc.

4. Вот собака.

Also possible is Вон собака, doing the same sort of "introducing", but implying greater distance.

[Astraios]

Lakota has more than four, but they're not really done justice in these four constructions, because they're so similar.

1) The copula "be" either uses héčha (with nouns only), or treats the object as a verb (with nouns sometimes, and with adjectives always):
Šúŋka kiŋ wamákȟaškaŋ héčha. / Šúŋka kiŋ ǧí.
The dog is an animal. / The dog is brown.
> My dictionary calls héčha a classificatory verb, and says it can't be used with any other meaning apart from "X is a Y", or "X belongs to the class of Y".

2) The substantive "be" needs different verbs depending on whether the subject is animate or inanimate, on its relative shape, and on its position relative to the prepositional phrase or adverb:
Šúŋka kiŋ hél nážiŋ. / Čhaŋkú kiŋ hél ȟpáye. / Thípi kiŋ hél hé.
The dog is [stands.ANI] there. / The road is [lies] there. / The house is [stands.INAN] there. ...etc.

3) The existential "be" uses the same constructions as 2), but with an indefinite subject:
Šúŋka waŋ hél nážiŋ. / Čhaŋkú waŋ hél ȟpáye. / Thípi waŋ hél hé.
There is [stands.ANI] a dog there. / There is [lies] a road there. / There is [stands.INAN] a house there. ...etc.

4) The presentative "be", I can't think of a way to say it that doesn't mean either "This is a dog", which just uses the same construction as 1), or "A dog is here", which uses 2):
Lé šúŋka. / Lé šúŋka héčha. .. Šúŋka waŋ lél nážiŋ.
This "dogs". / This is a dog. .. A dog is [stands.ANI] here.
> Actually, that's a lie; you can make it sort of presentative by sticking on an interjection like Wáŋ lé wáŋ (if you're a he) or Má lé má (if you're a she), which are for drawing attention to something:
Wáŋ lé wáŋ šúŋka!
Hey look, [it's a] dog!

[zompist]

2) Il cane sta nel giardino.

Well, unless you're talking about a stone dog...

I dunno here actually. Pending native speaker input, my impression of the Italian stare/essere distinction is that it isn't the same as the Spanish estar/ser contrast. While el perro es en el jardin sounds very wrong, to my (admittedly non-native) ears il cane è nel giardino doesn't sound at all unacceptable (è nel giardino, il cane sounds vaguely more idiomatic to me though.)

Yeah, it's not the same as estar/ser. My understanding is that stare/essere can be in more free alternation, but that stare implies an activity or present status— what's that dog up to? My main point though is that Legion is looking for various complications of ’to be’ and it'd be wrong to skip over stare entirely.

[schwhatever]

1) Собака животное.

This sounds a little off to me (though it might just be me). In this sort of "assigning a definition"-type sentence I'd rather use of the following:
Собака — это животное. (using это as a stand-in copula)
Собака является животным. (using the verb являться)

It sounds off to me too (but I'm not a native speaker, so I'm not sure that that proves anything really). I think part of the weirdness is sticking a feminine noun right next to a neuter noun that's clearly derived from a neuter adjective. The mismatched gender though is just icing on the cake, since you can't really connect adjectives and nouns in that manner in Russian. I think, at least with Russian, we need to expand the copula category into three different sections:

1a. Descriptive predicates* - the weather is warm // погода тёпло
1b. Inalienable nominative predicates** - my boyfriend is American // мой друг - американец
1c. Alienable nominative predicates** - she's a teacher // она учительницой.

The descriptive predicates are a little unpredictable though, since a lot of forms (I'm thinking of colors and height, but there's other descriptors too I think) that get treated very idiomatically in Russian.

*I say "descriptive" because some language might distinguish between adjectival and adverbial predicates in copulas, but Russian and English, the two languages in this post, don't, and furthermore realize it completely differently - Russian only allows adverbial predicates, English only allows adjectival ones.

**Alienable/Inalienable is probably an inadequate fleshing out of the distinction here, since nationality can change, albeit less readily than profession... sometimes. Likewise, kin terms are treated as inalienable, although they clearly can be gained (although then again, I don't think they're thought of as potentially be lost? I don't know). Tangentially, the distinction between them is that the alienable uses instrumental case for the nominative predicate, while the inalienable uses nominative.

[Mecislau]

1a. Descriptive predicates* - the weather is warm // погода тёпло
1b. Inalienable nominative predicates** - my boyfriend is American // мой друг - американец
1c. Alienable nominative predicates** - she's a teacher // она учительницой.

Erm, two out of those three sentences aren't grammatical.

With 1a, you have both a non-exitent form *тёпло (you mean теплó?), and a gender mismatch. You have to say "Погода тепла" or "Погода – тёплая".

With 1c, the instrumental of "teacher" is учительницей, not учительницой. That said, it sound weird to have an instrumental here. You could use it in the past or future (eg, она была учительницей), but in the present only "она учительница" really works. (You could use the instrumental in "Она работает учительницей", but that's no longer a copula).

[schwhatever]

Ugh, adverbs. Likewise, I forgot about the present copula being an exception for the instrumental stuff.

[Viktor77]

Here's them in Latvian. Latvian lacks "there" in the sense of "there is" so #3 has multiple translations.

1. Suns ir dzīvnieks.
DogNOM is animalNOM

2. Suns ir dārzā.
DogNOM is gardenLOC

3. Suns ir dārzā.
Same as above.
But if you want to say “there in that garden is a dog:"
Tajā dārzā ir suns.
ThatLOC gardenLOC is dogNOM

4. Šeit ir suns.
Here is dogNOM

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

日本共通語：

1) Inu ha doubutsu desu.
2) Inu ha niwa ni imasu.
3) Niwa ni ha inu ga imasu.
4) Kore ha inu desu.

1 and 4 for share the copula, but the structure is different.
2 and 3 invert the subject and location, but keep the same verb as well.

Basically, in Japanese, you distinguish attributive uses (which will use desu) and locative uses (which will use imasu/arimasu depending on whether its animate or inanimate.)

[zompist]

Quechua (de Ayacucho):

1) Allqoqa animalmi.
dog-TOPIC animal-EVID
2) Allqoqa kanchapim.
dog-TOPIC enclosure-LOC-EVID
3) Allqo kanchapi kanmi.
dog enclosure-LOC be-3s-EVID
4) Huk allqo.
one dog

Just one copula kay; in the 3s it appears only with an existential meaning.

The -m(i) suffix is the direct knowledge evidential.

[Ser]

Written Arabic:

1) الكلب حيوان.‏ /al-kalb-u ħajawaːn-un/
DEF-dog-NOM.DEF animal-NOM.INDEF
2) الكلب في الحديقة.‏ /al-kalb-u fiː l-ħadiːqat-i/
DEF-dog-NOM.DEF in DEF-garden-OBL.DEF
3) في الحديقة كلب‏.‏ /fiː l-ħadiːqat-i kalb-un/
in DEF-garden-OBL.DEF dog-NOM.INDEF
4) ها هو كلب.‏ /haː huwa kalb-un/
hā 3SG.M dog-NOM.INDEF
(hā = presentative particle)
هنا كلب /hunaː kalb-un/
here dog-NOM.INDEF

1 and 2 are not differentiated in structure; in 3 the adverb, adverbial or adverbial clause must be placed before the noun; and all of them use a zero copula structure in the present.

However, the copula changes to the verb ليس /lajsa/ 'to not be' in the negative present, and for all other TAMs to كان kāna:

أليس الكلب في الحديقة؟ /ʔa-lajsa l-kalb-u fiː l-ħadiːqat-i/
ʾa-not.be.3SG.M DEF-dog-NOM.DEF in DEF-garden-OBL.DEF 'Isn't the dog in the garden?'
(ʾa = interrogative particle)

سيكون الكلب في الحديقة.‏ /sa-yakuːnu l-kalb-u fiː l-ħadiːqat-i/
FUT-be.3SG."PRES" DEF-dog.NOM.DEF in DEF-garden-OBL.DEF 'The dog will be in the garden.'

Talking about Arabic in particular, there's a small series of adjectival verbs that mean "to be or become X". I'm not sure about the actual nuances between these and just using the copula (or zero copula) + an adjective though. These are typically form I with the transfix CaCuCa, and form IX (ʾi)CCaC:a, e.g. بعد /baʕuda/ "to be/become far", احمر /(ʔi)ħmarːa/ "to be/become red, to blush".

بعد الكلب ولكن استطعت أن أراه.‏ /baʕuda l-kalbu wa-laːkin i statˤaʕtu ʔan ʔaraː-hu/
be.far.3SG.PRF DEF-dog-NOM.DEF and-but be.able.to.1SG.PRF ʾan see.1SG.SUBJ-him
'The dog was getting far but I was able to see it.'
(i = epenthetic sound, ʾan = particle introducing a conjugated verb in a periphrasis)

4 uses the presentative particle ها hā, and you *could* analyze the 3SG pronoun here to be the copula. I think the presentative situation is something exclusive to the present, isn't it? The second structure is a simple "here [zero copula] dog".

[Cedh]

German:

1) Ein Hund ist ein Tier.
2) Der Hund ist im Garten.
3) Da ist ein Hund im Garten. / Es gibt einen Hund im Garten.
4) Da ist ein Hund. / Es gibt einen Hund. / Es war einmal ein Hund.

[svld]

Mandarin
1) 狗是動物
2) (那 隻/條)狗在 花園/院子 裡
3) 有 隻/條 狗在 花園/院子 裡
4) 這裡有隻狗

[Ser]

Mandarin
1) 狗是動物
2) (那 隻/條)狗在 花園/院子 裡
3) 有 隻/條 狗在 花園/院子 裡
4) 這裡有隻狗

But hey! There's quite a lot to say about that!

[jal]

In Dutch:

1) Een hond is een dier / Honden zijn dieren (single + definite article sounds akward)
2) De hond is in de tuin (although instead of "is" a different verb could be used, or a progressive could be added: "de hond is in de tuin aan 't spelen")
3) Er staat/loopt/ligt een hond in de tuin (not possible to use "is" here)
4) Hier is een hond / hier heb ik/je een hond

So simple "is" is only used for the copula and possibly the substantive, the existential uses different verbs, and presentative has a special construction.


JAL