The East Slavic ‘HAVE’: between the be- and have-patterning?
Andrii Danylenko
Pace University (New York)adanylenko@pace.edu
1. Introduction (Meillet, Bally, Kuryłowicz, Vendryes, Ginneken, Mrázek)Common assumptions:o Gk. V÷ù, Lat. habeō, Goth. haba, Lith. turiù, Sl. imamь (< *jimami) and the like
could have entered the grammar of late dialectal areas of IE (Meillet 1923)o Such verbs stem from transitive verbs with the general meaning ‘hold, grasp’(Isačenko 1974)
o All modern European languages are polarized into two groups, have- and belanguages
have-languages
EnglishGermanDutch
FrenchCzech
SlovakSerbian/Croatian
SloveneLithuanian, etc.

transitional languages

PolishUkrainian
Belarusianbe-languages
FinnishEstonian
HungarianRussian(Isačenko 1974; Justus 1999a, 1999b)o Among the Slavic languages, Russian is the only solid be-language
Justus (1999a, 77) argued that the older be-type predicate of possession is “stillfound in Sanskrit and Russian”:(1)a. R u (at) menja (I-gen.) est’ (is) mašina (car-nom.)‘I have a car’b. L mihi (I-dat) est ‘to me is’o From the early 18th c. onward under the influence of German and French, imět’‘have’ penetrates into the language of the Russian élite in numerous
phraseologims and is firmly established in literary Russian by the end of the 18thc. The verb penetrated into Russian vernacular one century laterčestь iměju ‘I have the honor’iměetъ izrjadnoe položenie ‘[the room] has an excellent situation’imětь xorošij vidъ ‘look good’(Grammatica Russica by Michael Groening, 1750, cited in Isačenko 1974)

My major claims would be the following: East Slavic demonstrates a much more complicated situation
 Russian can hardly be treated as a solid be-language
 dialectally and historically, the language shows a competing havepossessive patterning Ukrainian (along with Belarusian) is not a transitional but rather a typologicallysplit system demonstrating concurrently both be- and have- patterning the above split is historically attested in literary Ukrainian(s) and its
dialects
 All the eastern Slavic languages are characterized by a split system, though
operational to a different extent in each of them
2. Reconciling possessive patterns in (East) Slavic
Czech and Slovak are the focus central European Slavic languages which are affected,
according to Kurzová (1999, 503), by the Standard Average European generalization of
the finite nominative-accusative sentence, distinguishable in the typologically innovative
West European (WE) languages
Thus, the alleged archaic status of Russian poses several immediate questions: How can one reconcile the be-patterning as a peripheral phenomenon with thefocus CE Slavic languages?
 What is the transitional vector of Ukrainian/Belarusian purportedly influenced by
Polish and Russian?
2)a. U ja (I) maju (have-pres. 1 sg) mašynu (car-acc.)
b. U u (at) mene (I-gen.) je (is) mašyna (car-nom.)‘I have a car’3)

a. P mam (have-pres. 1 sg) samochód (car-acc.)‘I have a car’b. P u (at) jednego (I-gen.) był długi muszkiet (-nom.)‘one has a long musket’ (Ivanov 1989, 169)
 How can we explain different generalization of the sentence type in more archaic
Slavic languages as compared with the WE languages?
The generalization of the nominative-accusative sentence type, as evidenced in
the WE languages, would imply the emergence of the verb ‘have’ of possession.
And, conversely, a predominance of the flexional principle in Slavic, which has
remained “loyal to the Indo-European spirit” (Meillet 1924, 12), would strongly
suggest a perpetuation of be-constructions like the Russian, with the preposition u‘by, at’ added at a later date to denote an agent, demoted from its topic position

2

Methods:
Historical and socio-linguistic methods with elements of typological profiling
3. The New Slavic Perfect.
A new, “possessive” perfect (Mathesius 1925) in Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Macedonian(Koneski 1967, 203-04) and, though mostly colloquially, in Lower and Upper Sorbian(Faßke and Michalk 1981, 227), Polish (Mrázek 1973, 180-81), and, though sporadically,in Southwest Ukrainian:4)

a. Cz mámezasetohave-pres. 1 pl. sow-PPP nom. sg. n.
‘we have sown’
b. Cz mámepolehave-pres. 1 pl.
field-acc. sg. n.
‘we have sown the field’zasetosow-PPP nom. sg. n.

The Slavic languages, with the exception of East Slavic, must have first developed ‘have’as a transitive main verb of possession, which subsequently evolved a perfect auxiliaryuse
4. Typological evidence from Romance
The process of grammaticalization of ‘have’ in the WE languages was essentially thesame for the periphrastic perfect and the future form.
o To use the notions of prospective and retrospective aspects in Romance,
Fleischman (1983, 195) presented the archetypal perfect function (retrospective
present) in Latin as evolving in the direction of the past, just as the prospective
complex constructions have evolved in the direction of futureso Constructions with habere ‘have’ turning into a temporal auxiliary might haveemerged from earlier Latin constructions of habere + OBJECT, with apredicativum referring to its property (Pinkster 1987, 193)
4.1. Perfect formations
In the case of perfect formations, the predicativum marks a property of the object that isdue to a former action or process in which it was involved:
5)

L epistulas (letter-acc. pl.) lectas (read-PPP acc.pl.) habeo (have-1 sg.)
‘I have read letters’

Viewed prospectively, the predicativum, fulfilled by a gerundive, represents a
property to be acquired by the object in the future as in the following example:
6)

L epistulas (letters-acc.) legendas (read-gerv. acc. pl.) habeo (have-1 sg.)
‘I have letters to read’ or ‘I have to read letters’ (see Bauer 2000, 255–57)

3

The spreading of what Benveniste dubbed ‘pseudo-transitivity’ might have triggered:o the extension of the infinitive in the PC with the future time referenceo the emergence of the infinitive formation with the modality of obligation evolving
gradually into the future marker as observed in transition from ‘I have to sing’ to‘I will sing’ for L cantare habeo (Kuryłowicz 1931, 452; Danylenko 2006, 199)
It is not clear if the so-called Action Schema involving an agent, a patient, and someaction or activity might have provoked the appearance of ‘have’:
X takes Y > X has, owns Y (Heine 1997, 47)
 The verb ‘have’ as a stative formation in -ē- could hardly have derived from‘take’ inasmuch as the -ē- would have created the syntactically transitive stative‘have’ (in Bauer’s terms) from an intransitive ‘hold’ by one minute step intransitivity increase (Benveniste 1966, 196-98, 207)
 The meaning of ‘take’, in view of an equal number of participants in the relational
structure, is thus higher than ‘have’ on a transitivity scale because its object isaffected (Justus 1999a)
5. Historical evidence from Baltic
Baltic falls into two major linguistic areas in the distribution of the be- and haveconstructions
BE

Latvian, a highly inflectional, though a more innovative language thenLithuanian, has retained into the present time the ancient dative of possession of
the type:7)

La man (I-dat. sg.) ir (is) nams (house-nom. sg.)
‘I have a house’ (Fennell and Gelsen 1980, 18; Endzelin 1922, 427)
More importantly, the use of the verb turêt in the possessive meaning proper isalso represented in this language, though mostly dialectally and by scanty
examples (Mühlenbach 1929-1932, 270)

HAVE Lithuanian, a solid inflectional language, preserves the dative of possession andshows a strong inclination toward using the verb tur¾ti ‘have’ in the possessive
meaning (see Danylenko 2001)
8)

a. Li Motinai (mother-dat) dræba (tremble-pres. 3 sg) rañkos (hands-nom.)‘mother’s hands tremble’ (Ambrazas 1997, 626)
b. Li aš (I) turiu (have-pres. 1 sg.) brolį (brother-acc. m.)‘I have a brother’ (Ivanov 1989, 173)

4

A rare Lithuanian construction of pàs ‘at, to’ followed by the accusative to refer to thepossessor
Li pàs kùpčių (merchant-acc. sg. m.) yrà (is) duktº (daughter-nom. sg. f.)‘the merchant has a daughter’(Fraenkel 1929, 84; see Danylenko 2005)

9)

The above construction is a borrowing from the Russian be-construction, withspecifically possessive constructions with u ‘at’ plus the genitive case in the northern andsome western central Russian dialects:
10)

R u nas (we-gen.) posejano (sow-PPP nom. sg. n.)‘we have sown’ (see Kuz’mina 1993, 131-33)

Called p o s s e s s i v e r e s u l t a t i v e (Danylenko 2005), the above construction is amirror-image reflection of the new perfect in some western Slavic languages
6. Modern reflexes of Slavic ‘have’
From the Slavic root *em- (Meillet 1924, 203):
1. *jęti : *jimó ‘take’ (determined imperfective) later replaced by numerous prefixed
perfectives like OCS vǔn-ęti : vǔn-ĭmó ‘cavere’ (cf. Vaillant 1966, 194)
2. *jimati : *jemljó ‘take’ (indetermined imperfective) which would not take any
prefixes
3. *jiměti : *jimami ‘hold, own, have’ (imperfective)
R vzjat’ : voz’mu ‘take’ (prft) ~ brat’ : beru ‘take’ (imprft)
R vzjat’ : voz’mu ‘take’ (prft) ~ imet’ : imeju ‘have’ (imprft)
The latter two belong to one root, thereby maintaining the basic IE opposition between‘take’ and ‘have’, expandable by aspectual nuances not encountered in the WE languages
As a Slavic innovation, *jiměti : *jimami (due to morphological leveling) tended to be
replaced by the present in -ěЧª (Vaillant 1966, 450)
the imperative stem in -ě-: OCS iměi, Cz měj, Pol. miej (2 sg)
6.1. Current distribution


The archaic (athematic) (van Wijk 1929):
Slov iméti : imamCz míti : mám
P mieć : mam
USo měć : mam
LSo měś : mam

Russian dialects had steadily followed the new pattern with -ě-:MoR imet’ : imeju

5West Slavic preserved the initial i in historical reflexes of *jimati and in *jiměti
this sound followed subsequently the line of development of the jers in weak
positions (Shevelov 1965, 441):
P imać ‘take, catch’ vs. mieć ‘have’
Plb jáЧmą vs. met
LSo jimaś vs. LSo měś
USo jimać vs. měć
Slk imat’ vs. mat’Cz jímati vs. míti maty in Ukrainian and mec’ ‘have’ in Belarusian (14th-15th cc.) as a result ofpartial overlapping of the imperfectives iměti ‘have’ and imati ‘take’ and in thelatter, of the verbs *jimª and *jimati (see paradigms without duals in (10):11)

OR iměti ‘have’
1 sg imamь pl imamъ
2 sg imaši
pl imate
3 sg imatьpl imutь
MoU ‘have’
1 sg maju
2 sg maješ
3 sg majepl. majemo
pl. majemo
pl. majut’

OR jati ‘take’
imu
imemъ
imeši imete
imetъ imutь
MoU jati (in agglutination only with synthetic future
forms)-mu -memo-meš -mete
-me
-mut’

7. Iměti in Old Church Slavonic and East Slavic
Constructions with iměti in OCS texts are largely loan translations from Greek
constructions with V÷åéí. However, all phraseological units of iměti cited in Lexicon
linguae palaeoslavicae (LLP), differ structurally from their Greek counterparts:
12)

OCS zavistĭ (envy-acc. sg. f.) imějóštiimŭ (have-PrAP dat. pl. m.)‘ô™í ö2ïíïõìЭíùí’ (Supr. 403:5)
OCS bolezni (sickness-acc. pl. f.) iměję (have-PrAP nom. sg. m.)‘Bëãõíüìåíïò’ (Supr. 335:13)
OCS ne (not) imy (have-PrAP nom. sg. m.) very (trust-gen. sg. f.)‘2áõìÜæùí’ (Supr. 224:12)

The latter unit is obviously Slavic proper (MoU jnjaty viry ‘trust’). Similar old
constructions, inherited in all likelihood from late Common Slavic, were well integrated
in the vernacular(s)6OCS Luke as compared with the Czech and Bulgarian translations (Přikrylová 1998):
1) constructions with the verb ‘have’, both in the OCS Vorlage and in its translations
2) constructions with iměti, only in the OCS text3) constructions with the verb ‘have’, attested only in the translations4) the use of the verb ‘have’ either in Czech or Bulgarian translation
The use of iměti in OCS, as well as its development from a purely possessive meaning to
manifold grammatical (modal, temporal) functions in Czech and Bulgarian, should beconceived as internally motivated
Old Novgorodian examples:13)

ONovg cĭtŭ (what-acc.) dо mĭnŭ (to me) zŭla (offence-gen.sg.) imeeši (have-pres.
2 sg.)‘what offence do you have to me?’ (Letter A7, no 752, ca 1080-1100)

14)

ONovg ne (not) imamĭ (have-pres. 1 sg.) vŭlosti (goods-gen. sg. f.)‘I do not have any worldly goods [except you]’ (Letter 503) (Zaliznjak
1995, 229, 262)

The development of the verb ‘have’, attested already in Old East Slavic records, should
be conceived of qualitatively, rather than quantitatively. The verb ‘have’, though tending
to give way under influence of the construction u menja jest’ did not vanish either in thestandard language or in the vernacular. This verb proves to have gone through a redistribution and, as a result, narrowed its functions (Safarewiczowa 1964)
8. Grammaticalization of ‘have’ in Old Church Slavonic
Parameters of grammaticalization:

extension (or context generalization): use in new contexts suggests new meaning
desemanticization (or ‘semantic bleaching’), i.e., loss in meaning content
decatigarialization, i.e., loss in morphosyntactic properties characteristic of lexicalor other less grammaticalized forms
erosion (or ‘phonetic reduction’), i.e., loss in phonetics substance (Andersen;
Heine, Kuteva)

Paraphrases of the type:imamь (1 sg.) (iměti) ‘have’ + inf.
xoštª (1 sg.) (xotěti/xъtěti) ‘want, will’ + inf. (Večerka 1993, 175)
Modality of imamь was difficult to distinguish from the temporal meaning proper in mostof the contexts:
15)
OCS to kako imamь (have-pres. 1 sg.) razuměti (understand-imprf)‘how have I to understand that’ (êáp р™ò V÷ïìåí ãí™íáé)(Večerka 1993, 179)
7

Not influenced by Greek, the future time reference seems to be exemplified by a wellknown paraphrase with a non-finite lexical verb as found in the Ostromir Gospel of 105657:
16)

OCS

vьsa jeliko imaaši prodaždь i razdai ništiimъ
all much have-pres. 2sg sell-impr 2sg and give-impr 2sg poor-dat. pl.
iměti imaaši sъkrovišče na n/e/b/e/se (EO, 111a, 77b)
have-inf have:to-pres. 2sg. treasure-acc.sg.n. on haven-loc. sg. n.
рÜíôá Ѓóá V÷åéò рюëçóïí êáp äéÜäïò рôù÷ïqò,êáp Wîåéò èçóáõñ{í Tí ïˆñáí©.
‘sell that thou hast, and give to the poor’ (Mt 19:21)

9. Grammaticalization of ‘have’ in East Slavic
The paraphrases based on the de-modal extension of iměti ‘have’ were attested in all theEast Slavic languages (Křížková 1960, 116-20)
In Middle Russian, that type was stylistically marked (Church Slavonic and bookish)
In Ruthenian (Middle Ukrainian and Belarusian), this type was commonplace, competingwith other (indigenous) constructions based on various de-modal and de-phasal
extensions
9.1. De-modal extensions of iměti/maty ‘have’ in Ukrainian/Belarusian
Independent paraphrases commonly attested in various registers and genres:17) MUkr.

ne maju toho rušyty (Charter of 1347)
not have:to-pres. 1sg. that-acc.gen. m. violate‘I must not violate that [bill of sale]’No future tense categorization due to incomplete grammaticalization
9.2. De-phasal extensions of iměti ‘have’ in East Slavico East Slavic paraphrases with the inceptive phasal perfective jati ‘take’, not foundin West and South Slavic, cf. -čati ‘begin’ (načati, počati, učati) which came into
use somewhat latero In some Russian territories the auxiliary jati followed by an infinitive of the mainverb was commonly used in reference to the future till the sixteenth century and issporadically attested in some modern dialects (Křížková 1960, 128-29). The
competing formation budu + INF prevailed in literary Russian from the early
sixteenth century

8o Attested in southern Belarusian in parallel use with budu (fut.1 sg.) + INF:
18)

Be dial. icimu from‘I will go’

ici+
go-inf.

(i)mutake:fut. 1 sg

9.3. De-phasal extensions of iměti/maty ‘have’ in Ukrainian
The de-phasal construction with jati ‘take’ was used in Ukrainian (and Belarusian) fromthe 14th c. onward, concurrently with the PF budu + INF (Bevzenko et al. 1978)
These two imperfective futures are considered today stylistic variants in some textbooks
and grammars
Morphonological and semantic overlapping of the verbs iměti ‘have’ and imati/jati ‘take’is found in the homonymic imutь (2 pl.) from both iměti and jati:
19)

MUkr. a u kotoromъ torhu imutь ix
and in which-loc. sg. Market-loc. sg. m. have/take-pres. 3 pl. them
kupiti tamъ imutь dati […] po četyry hroši (15th c.)buy-inf.prf. there have:to-pres. 3 pl.give-inf.prf. by four grosh-dat. sg. m‘And in which market they will buy them [horses], they have to/will pay
four groshes’

9. 4. Distribution of the de-phasal reflexes: clitic vs. affix
 The next round in the grammaticalization process was heralded by the
postposition of the auxilairy that had been used as a free form till the 15th c.
 Appearance of the postverbal auxiliary with clitic properties (Franks and King
2000, 196-7) in the 16th c.
 The auxiliary clitic is used in the so-called synthetic (de-inceptive) future today
eitherautonomously in Southwest Ukrainiana) pysaty (write) mu (take-fut. 1 sg.) VCliticb) mu (take-fut. 1 sg.) pysaty (write) CliticV‘I shall write’
or being agglutinated with the infinitive in Southeast (standard) Ukrainian
pysatymu (write-inf:take-fut. 1 sg.)
Verb+Affix?
‘I shall write’

9.5. The Ukrainian synthetic future vs. the Serbian future
The word > inflected clitic > suffix grammaticalization for Serbian/Croatian (Andersen
2008: 27):

9

20)

Serb hoć-u pisati > pisati=hć-u fut. > písa=ć-u fut. 1sg.
‘I want to write’ > ‘I will/shall write’ Ukrainian exhibits a limited morphonological and morphosyntactic univerbation.
With the auxiliary-turned-clitic in Southwest Ukrainian, the process ofgrammaticalization stopped short of transforming the auxiliary clitic into a true
affix in Southeast Ukrainian Both měti : mamъ ‘have’ (MoUkr. maty ‘have’ and ‘have to’) and jati : mu ‘take’underwent phonetic erosion long before the emergence of the synthetic future.
Erosion ultimately strengthened the desemantization of the said two verbs in
Ukrainian

21)

a. U ja maju (have-pres. 1sg.) budynok (house-acc. sg. m.)‘I have a house’b. U ja maju (have:to-pres. 1sg.) bihty (run-inf.imprf.)‘I have to hurry up’

10. The East Slavic resultative
Is Russian a solid be-language?
22)

a. R dial. u (at) nego (he-gen.) ujexano (PPP 3 sg. n.)‘he has left’b. R dial. u (at) nego (he-gen.) pole (field-nom./acc. sg. n.) zasejano (sow-PPP 3
sg. n.)‘he has sown the field’

Similar constructions are found in Belarusian and Ukrainian:
23)

a. U dial. u (at) nas (we-gen) vyorano (sow-PPP 3 sg. n.)‘we have ploughed’
b. U dial. u (at) nas (we-gen) pole (field-acc. sg. n.) vyorano (sow-PPP 3 sg. n.)‘we have ploughed the field’

Russian dialectal constructions with u plus the genitive which refer to an agent-salientparticipant downgraded to a possessor, are innovations (19th to 20th c). They are also
found in the dialects adjacent to those which demonstrate i-less forms of the possessive
verb ‘have’ (Kuz’mina 1993,136, map 7)
All the East Slavic languages demonstrate two types of possessive patterning based on an
active and stative relational structures, whence the new West/South Slavic perfect vs. theEast Slavic resultative10

11. Possessive patterning in East Slavic
The two possessive patternings are to be explained sociolinguistically (cf. Du Bois 1987):
1) The be-oriented patterning is likely to be realized in spoken discourse with a large
amount of active background information, whence, for example, the use of
constructions with byt’ ‘be’ and the prepositional phrase u plus the genitive casein the Russian, and partly in Ukrainian and Belarusian vernaculars, as well as the
emergence of the Russian resultative in isolated and small linguistic communities
in the North at the turn of the 20th c.
2) The have-patterning is highly predictable in non-spoken (written) discourse,which implies communication in a large community with much less sharedbackground information, whence the bookish use of iměti in the history of literary
East Slavic languages.
12. Conclusions
The history of Russian shows a gradual penetration of the verb ‘have’ into its
linguistic system under the influence of information flow in discourse within aparticular linguistic community. This wholly indigenous process could havebrought about a historic redistribution of be- and have-constructions, the former
being preserved in the vernacular (spoken discourse) and the latter being mostly
used in the literary language (written discourse)

Taken geographically, the Russian language falls conspicuously into twocomplementary dialectal zones, which may be roughly labeled Northern andSouthern Russian. The former zone displays a strong inclination toward a
syntactic patterning on the basis of ‘be’, while the latter zone is characterized by ahaphazard distribution of both be- and have-constructions

Southern Russian, however, demonstrates sporadically some morphonological(the rise of i-less forms like mec’ : maju) and morphosyntactic features proper to
Ukrainian and Belarusian which display almost a parallel use of the twopossessive patternings. Ukrainian is characterized by a split in possessive
patterning, with the use of predominantly be-constructions in the east under apossible influence from modern Russian literary norms, and with the prevailinguse of have-constructions in the west, provoked by Polish traditions

Generally, East Slavic appears typologically heterogeneous with regard topossessive patterning. One can speak of a twofold split linguistic system which(dialectally or discourse-pragmatically) may exhibit either be- or have-patterning

11

References
Andersen, Henning. 2006. ‘Periphrastic futures in Slavic. Divergence and convergence’. In
Eksell, Kerstin & Thora Vinther (eds.). Change in Verbal Systems. Issues in Explanation.
Bern: Peter Lang, 9-45.
Andersen, Henning. 2008. Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In:
Eythórsson, Thórhallur (ed.). Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal
papers. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 11-44.
Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. The Spread of Transitivity in Latin andFrench. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. “Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. In: Benveniste,
Émile. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard, 187-07 [reprint of 1960].
Bevzenko, S. P. et al. 1978. Istorija ukrajins’koji movy. Morfolohija.Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2002. The East Slavic ‘have’: revising a developmental scenario. In: JonesBley, K. et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European
Conference. Los Angeles, November 9-10, 2001. Washington, D.C., 105-27 (Journal of IndoEuropean Studies Monograph Series. 44).
Danylenko, Andrii. 2003. Predykaty, vidminly i diatezy v ukrajins’kij movi: istoryčnyj itypolohičnyj aspekty. Xarkiv: Oko.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2005. Is there any possessive perfect in North Russian? Word 56 (3), 347-79.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2006. Slavica et Islamica. Ukrainian in Context. München: Otto Sagner
Verlag.
Dingley, John. 1995. Imĕti in the Laurentian redaction of the Primary Chronicle. In: The
Language and Verse of Russia: In Honor of Dean S. Worth on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday,
Henrik Birnbaum and Michael S. Flier (eds.). Moscow: Vostočnaya Literatura Publishers, 8087.
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805-55.
Endzelin, Janis. 1922. Lettische Grammatik. Rīga: A. Gulbis.
Faßke, Helmut and Siegfried Michalk. 1980. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache derGegenwart. Morphologie. Leipzig: VEB Domowina-Verlag.
Fennell, Trevor G. and Henry Gelsen. 1980. A Grammar of Modern Latvian. Vol. 1. The
Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1983. From pragmatics to grammar. Lingua 60, 183–214.
Franks, Steven and Tracy Golloway King. 2000. A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. New York.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1929. Syntax der litauischen Postpositionen und Präpositionen. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2006. The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford, New York:
Oxford University Press
Isačenko, Alexander V. 1974. On ‘have’ and ‘be’ languages (a typological sketch). In: Slavic
Forum: Essays in Linguistics and Literature, Michael S. Flier (ed.). The Hague/Paris:
Mouton, 43-77.
Ivanov Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič et al. (eds.). 1989. Kategorija posessivnosti v slavjanskix ibalkanskix jazykax. Moscow: Nauka.
Justus, Carol F. 1999a. The Arrival of Italic and Germanic ‘have’ in late Indo-European. In:
Proceedings of the Tenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, 1998 (=Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 32), Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E.
Huld, Angella Della Volpe, and Miriam Robbins Dexter. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the
Study of Man, 77-94.

12

Justus, Carol F. 1999b. Indo-European ‘have’: a Grammatical Etymology. In: Language Change
and Typological Variation: in honor of Winfred P. Lehmann’s 83rd birthday. Vol. 2, (=Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 31), C. J. Justus and Edgar C. Polomé (eds.).
Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 613-41.
Koneski, Blaže. 1967. Istorija na makedonskiot jazik. Skopje: Kultura.
Křížková, Helena. 1960. Vývoj opisného futura v jazycích slovanských, zvláštĕ v ruštinĕ. Praha:
Státní pedagogické nakladatelství (Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Fakultas
Philosophica 4. Philologica 11).
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1931. Les temps composés du roman. Prace filologiczne 15 (2):448-53.
Kurzová, Helena. 1999. Syntax in the Indo-European Morphosyntactic Type. In: Language
Change and Typological Variation: in honor of Winfred P. Lehmann’s 83rd birthday. Vol. 2,(= Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 31), C. J. Justus and Edgar C. Polomé(eds.). Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 501-520.
Kuz’mina, Irina Borisovna. 1993. Sintaksis russkix govorov v lingvogeografičeskom aspekte.
Moscow: Nauka.
LLP = Kutz, J. (ed.). 1958-1977. Slovník jazyka staroslovenského. Lexicon linguae
palaeoslovenicae, 4 vols. Praha: Academia.
Mathesius, Vilém. 1925. Slovesné časy typu perfektního v hovorové češtiné. Naše Řeč 9 (7):20002.
Meillet, Antoine. 1923. Le développement du verbe ‘avoir’. In Antidōron. Festschrift Jacob
Wackernagel zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres am 11. Dezember 1923 gewidmet von
Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9-13.
Meillet, Antoine. 1924. Le slave commun. Paris: Champion.
Mrázek, Roman. 1973. Funkční distribuce habere a esse v slovanské vete. In: Československépřednášky pro VII. mezinárodní sjezd slavistů ve Varšavě. Lingvistika. Praha: Akademia,
175-180.
Ostr. (Vostokov, Aleksandr Xristoforovič, ed.). 1843. Ostromirovo Èvangelie 1056-57 goda. St.
Petersburg: Imperatorskaja Akademija nauk.
Pinkster, Harm. 1987. ‘The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfecttense auxiliaries in Latin’. In: Haris, Martin and Paolo Ramat (eds.). Histoical developmentsof auxiliaries. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 193-223.
Přikrylová, Milena. 1998. Sémantika konstrukcí se slovesem mít ve staroslovenských biblických
textech a vývoj techto konstrukcí do češtiny a bulharištiny. Slavia 67 (1-2): 67-72.
Rouveret, Alain (ed.). 1998. “Être” et ‘avoir”. Syntax, sémantique, typologie. Saint-Denis:
Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Safarewiczowa, Halina. 1964. Oboczność я имею і у меня есть w języku rosyjskim dziś i dawnej(= Polska Akademia Nauk – Oddział w Krakowie. Prace komisji językoznawstwa 3).
Wrocław: Zakład narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Shevelov, George, Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic: The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Shevelov, George Y. 1979. A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter.
Vaillant, André. 1966. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 3: Le verbe. Paris: C.
Klincksieck.
Večerka, Radoslav. 1993. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax. Vol. 2: Die innere
Satzstruktur. Freiburg im Breisgau: U.W. Weiher.
Wijk, van N. 1929. Zu den Verbaldubletten auf -aЧó, -ati; -ěЧó, -ěti. Zeitschrift für slavische
Philologie 6:70-74.
Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’jevič. 1995. Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Moscow: Nauka.

13