Hannu.Tommola at UTA.FI
Sun Feb 14 10:22:58 UTC 2010
Dear Nigel and all,
as was already pointed out, there is this polysemy in Russian, too;
though not in all Slavic, cf. Czech:
1) _dlůžen_ (adjective like in Russian) 'owe' vs. 2) _musit_ 'have to,
ought to, must'
Russ. _dolg_, Cze. _dluh_ 'debt' is related with Gothic _dulgs_
In Ulfilas Gothic we find the compound _dulgis skula_ 'debtor' (Grm.
Schuldner)with the adjective _skula_ from the verb _skulan_ which had
both meanings: 1) 'owe' (schuldig sein) and 2) 'have to' (sollen,
müssen) - with modal and temporal uses.
The connection between the meanings is obvious also in languages where
the polysemy is not overtly lexical, cf.
1) _vara skyldig_ or _stå i skuld_ 'owe' vs. 2) _måste_ 'must'
Estonian (there is similar difference in Finnish):
1) _võlgu olema_ 'owe' vs. 2) _pidama_ 'must'
but observe the idiom (probably borrowed from language to language...)
where the expression 'to owe' is clearly used in the meaning '(you)
have to (give me an explanation)':
Swd. _du är skyldig mig en förklaring_
Est. _sa võlgned mulle seletuse_
Finn. _olet minulle selityksen velkaa_
'you owe me an explanation'
Quoting Nigel Vincent <nigel.vincent at MANCHESTER.AC.UK>:
> In many of the Romance languages the same verb means both 'owe' and
> 'must' (cf Italian debere, French devoir, Portuguese dever, etc). In
> English 'ought' is etymologically the past tense of 'owe'. I would
> be grateful for further instances of languages in which, either
> synchronically or diachronically, the same verb covers both the
> modal and the 'owe' meanings.
> Nigel Vincent
Hannu Tommola, Professor of Russian Language (Translation Theory and Practice)
School of Modern Languages and Translation Studies
FIN-33014 University of Tampere, Finland
Phone: +358-(0)3-3551 6102
More information about the Lingtyp