GIVE ANSWERS - Русский язык

We don't speak the verb "to be" in present tense usually. But if you say the verb "есть" it is correct but we don't speak it usually. In your example, you can say "Кто это есть?" and "Где есть туалет?" But people don't speak the word "есть" usually. But the word "есть" is main form of verb "to eat" (like "comer" in Spanish, with other pronouns the form to change, example "Yo como" is Я ем, Tu comes ты ешь еtс. so "есть" is main form like "comer"). So the answer of your question is the verb "to be" in present tense to exist. This is word "есть" but people don't speak this word usually. I am not sure for I said you about this word is right because nobody to use the word "есть" in meaning "to be". Except for Groot in Russian version Guardians of the Galaxy. Groot says "Я есть Грут" not "Я Грут". So if you will use the word "есть" as the verb "to be" you to be like Groot

As you know, according to the syntactical expressions of the membership relationship of languages is divided into two main types - esse and habeo-languages.

In this paper we will try to show that not only this, but many other syntactic phenomena can be attributed to the Russian language particular syntactic type, "being-oriented" languages (despite the fact that in Russian literary language is not represented by one of the four functions of the verb - modal; cf eng. I was to start at eleven o'clock or half. Bylo im czekać). Historically, the primary for of the verb to be is, presumably, the function of the predicate in the sentence existence. This type of Russian proposals described in the works of N. D. Arutunova and E. N. Shiryaev [1; 2]. Existential sentences are interpreted here very broadly: these include not only possessive constructions with be, but ligamentous, built on the model of existentially (her Eyes are blue; she was wearing a white dress).

We believe, however, that the identification of existential and possessive sentences in Russian language is not more legitimate than in habeo-languages.

Possessive proposal to be (I Have a car) appears in the result of the semantic development of the existential construction with the local component.

The subject of possession is vested with the attribute of independent existence.

The subject of possession is represented as inactive (fated to become the owner, more precisely, those for whom there is something). Incidentally, the languages are moving increasingly to the type habeo, what can be seen as the displacement of moral compass under the influence of tendencies toward rationalism and pragmatism in the worldview of the new age. It is interesting that the possessive construction with "active" verb (to have) also can be used metaphorically - in the existential meaning. Wed.: In the city there are places of entertainment; In the Russian language have many tserkovnoslavyanizmy.

Here even more evident pragmatic view of the world: there is not something around us, and for us or only for us, in our sphere of influence. Note that in Polish language the negation of the existential predicate requires replacement of the verb be possessive mieć (słonie są Tu - Tu nie ma słoni).

Existential and possessive sentences are structural diagrams with a personal verb, and therefore offers view my own country as the possessive should be considered incomplete (another thing is that they allow different semantic interpretation: "the country where I rest, not a state").

It is noticed that in the Russian language, the existential type (or more precisely, the derivational model) is extremely common, especially in colloquial speech (Arutyunova, 1976). Consider sentences of the form he was wearing a hat; she was wearing a white dress. Formally, these suggestions coincide with the existential (On the shore there's a place), but it is clear that they are not existential (not intended to question What is there?).

On the other hand, such proposals are not, and local (do not answer the question Where is something? and have no appropriate word order; cf: Where is my hat? Is your cap on your head...). In the sentence she was wearing a white dress, the verb is deprived of its lexical meaning, so at the present time it is absent (it is impossible: *it is a white dress). At the same time there is no construction with nominal predicate (schema, "N1 cop..."): the word dress only formally fulfils the function of subject, and the combination with the preposition - circumstances. Here are the contradiction between form and content - not such a rare thing in the language: the meaning is ‘she was in a white dress’ expressed model ‘where it was (was not!) the dress’. Thus, sentences of this structural type should be interpreted as the ligamentous structures of the transitional type, built diversion sentence patterns of existence.

The use or disuse of the verb to be in present tense we explain primarily to its significant or "switchesto". The denial of the predicate nominal as a whole (and not part only nominal) copula is obligatory, as it is merged here with the negative particle (Ivan's not home), but it certainly does not make the local offer in the existential.

In Russian syntax, there is another vast area, where the verb to be has played a very important role. This refers to the stiffened form of the aorist of this verb, become an indicator of a surreal mood. Particle would be used in this function alone, and also in connection with other particles and gipostaticeski indicators (that would, still, at least allegedly, just, okay, ever, to, in order, if only, etc.).

В таких вопросах глагол "to be" для настоящего времени не применяется. Данный глагол применяется для прошедшего или будущего времени. Например: Кто это "был"? или Где "будет" туалет?

There is no "to be" in the present tense in Russian language in this questions. In Russian U should use this verb in the past tense or future tense for indicate the time.