While learning Czech, I was a bit surprised to discover that the phrase, “I’m hungry” is “Mam hlad” (literally I have hunger). I knew that in Spanish the phrase is “Tengo hambre” (again, literally I have hunger). My son who’s learning French said that it’s the same in French (“J’ai fam”) and a bit of digging shows that it’s the same in many other European languages (German: “Ich habe Hunger”, Dutch: “Ik heb honger”, Italian: “Ho fame”) although Latin and Greek have verbs specifically to express hunger esurio and πεινάω, but a bit more digging shows that I’m cold in Latin is “frigidus sum” (I am cold) and not “tengo frio” (I have cold—Spanish) (Czech renders this is as “je mi zima” (It’s winter to me)).

So now, I’m wondering about the origin of the use of “to have” to express a state of being and how English came to differ from most of its closely related languages. Is this a Latin influence and if so, how did “to have” manage to become standard in not only Romance languages but also Germanic and Slavic languages? D A Hosek (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All North Germanic languages commonly use phrases like "I'm hungry", I believe. German hungrig and Dutch hongerig exist, but are relatively rare. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian you can say sono affamato but it's likely to be taken as a different sort of hunger, which the kids today seem to be calling "thirst". --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

An alternative, possibly older and now near-obsolete alternative would simply be "I hunger."

English, having formed from and assimilated elements of various Eurpean languages through migrations and invasions, has always had multiple ways of saying the same thing, sometimes regionally endemic and sometimes competing in parallel, and 'fashions' for them may come and go, and sometimes return again. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only way of saying things that seems to have mysteriously disappeared in English. Another one that strikes me is introducing yourself by name. The Germanic languages would normally have an active voice verb expression: Ich heiße Paul (German), Jag heter Pål (Swedish). However, in English one has to use the My name is Paul workaround. (Which exists in the other Germanic languages too, e.g. Mein Name ist Paul). The Romance languages use reflexive verbs, Je m'appelle Paul / Me llamo Pablo / Mi chiamo Paolo. I guess that can work in English too (I call myself Paul) but would sound much more natural in the passive voice (I'm called Paul) - however, why did English not keep the active voice wording analogous to heißen/heter? I guess it's about "fashions" as the previous poster stated. But then of course English has its quite simplistic way of saying it: I'm Paul. Which sounds better in English than the German Ich bin (der) Paul. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is "my name is" a workaround? Seems much more straightforward to me. The expressions I see in other languages translate to "I am called" or "I call myself", but I am called many things besides my name and I usually call myself me/myself/I. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Paul sang, "Her name was McGill / And she called herself Lil / But everyone knew her as Nancy..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The German and Swedish expressions aren't really the same as "I am called" or "I call myself". In terms of formality I see them at the same level as "My name is", and I would expect to hear their real name (Of course one might still hear "Ich heiße Tom" when their passport name is Thomas but that could be the same with "My name is Tom" in English. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In German one can say mich hungert ^[1][2][3] as well as mich dünkt (it seems to me), an archaic construction also surviving in English methinks.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they would sound very archaic to a German; on the other Hand, related to Wakuran's post, the direct equivalent of I'm hungry, ich bin hungrig, is quite commonly used in everydoy language and I couldn't be sure right away which of the two would be more common, Ich bin hungrig or Ich habe Hunger. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ngram Viewer suggests that, early on, Ich bin hungrig was slightly more popular than Ich habe Hunger up until around 1916. Ever since then, Ich habe Hunger has been steadily pulling away. Of course this may only be in a literary context, I have no clue how the two compare in real life conversation. GalacticShoe (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That shift over time could well be accurate. Thinking about it, "Ich habe Hunger" might sound a little more common and "Ich bin hungrig" slightly more distinguished (which could be correlated with somewhat "older" ways of expressing things). --79.91.113.116 (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the actual search results for "ich bin hungrig" in that Google Ngram search, you'll find that virtually all the hits for the adjectival construction in the older (19th-century) part of the corpus are biblical quotations of Mt 25:35 ("Ich bin hungrig gewesen, und ihr habt mich gespeiset") in the Martin Luther translation. The phrase hardly ever occurs in any other context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Native German here: "hungrig" is everything but rare. The phrases "Ich habe Hunger", "Ich bin hungrig" and "Ich hungere" exists, while the latter has a somewhat stronger meaning, not quite as stark as "Ich verhungere" (I'm starving). I use both first phrases regularly in daily speech. "Ich habe Hunger" is more informal, so I would use it more with family an friends, while "Ich bin hungrig" is more suitable for a formal context, while it can be used with friends as well. 178.208.99.186 (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Middle English the common way was to say me hungreth, but this construction fell into disuse by the end of the 15th century, to be replaced by i hungre. In modern English we have I hunger, but today the verb is mainly used in a figurative sense (as in Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness). The oldest use of to be hungry I found is from 1535.^[4] When the 1769 KJV was published, however, to hunger was (next to to be hungry) still a common way to express the literal sense (And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered., Luke 4:2; And if any man hunger, let him eat at home, 1 Cor. 11:34; Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink, Rom. 12:20). Other ways found in the KJV: to be consumed with hunger (Ezek. 34:29), to suffer hunger (Ps. 34:10; Prov. 19:15), and, yes, also to have hunger (Jer. 42:14). So the switch from to hunger to to be hungry was not complete yet by 1769.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus on the cross said "I thirst", or at least that's how it was translated, as I doubt He said it in English. Meanwhile, in Spanish, it's possible to say estoy hambriento for "I am hungry", but I don't think that's very common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John 19:28 has διψῶ, but I don't think the poor bloke spoke Greek either. Quite a few translations have "I am thirsty".  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Estoy hambriento", while grammatical and understandable, is often a calque from English.

--Error (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "hambriento" really an adjective here? To me it seems more as a participle, akin to "I am hungering" (which sounds rather forced in English). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Academia website calls it an adjective.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I don't think there is one verb for "to hunger".

--Error (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "hambrear" exists, but is rare. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hambrear. I am surprised!

--Error (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian has "Mi-e foame" and "Mi-e frig", "There is hunger/cold to me". The Balkan sprachbund?

--Error (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Greek (πεινάω/διψάω), and also not Turkish (açım, susadım). Another idiomatic expression in Turkish: karnım aç, "my belly is hungry". While one can also say boğazım susadı, "my throat is thirsty", this is not common.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Mandarin it is literally the same: 我肚子饿了 (wǒ dùzi è le), my belly is hungry. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add a pronunciation guide for the Scottish Gaelic place-name Rubha Robhanais. The pronunciation is given in Richard Cox's Settlement Names of Lewis as [ˌɍu ˈɾo-əˌniʃ]. I've never seen the first character used in IPA before. Does anyone know what it means and how it should be represented on Wikipedia? Zacwill (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have guessed it was a trilled/rolled r, but I'd have been wrong: that is apparently <r> or [r] – unless the rarer ˌɍ distinguishes the subtly different Scottish rolled r from the Italianate trilled r. However, I'm sure more philologically advanced Wikipedians will be able to enlighten us.

Of course, We have an article, but it doesn't seem to be helpful; nor does R. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Zacwill: My best guess, after reading pages 51–53 of that pdf and page 126 of Magne Oftedal's The Gaelic of Leurbost is that the "ɍ" character refers to an alveolar trill that is velarized, which would be rendered something like /rˠ/. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems correct; compare:

• Settlement Names: #33 Baile Geàrr — [ˌb̥alə ˈɡ̊ʲɑːɍ]^[6]
• Wiktionary: ceàrr — Pronunciation /kʲʰaːrˠ/ – /kʲʰɛːrˠ/ – [kʲʰæːrˠ]

 ​‑‑Lambiam 09:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. That paper is using the character ⟨ɍ⟩ as a stand-in for the correct IPA character ⟨r̴⟩, which can be hard to read. Velarization can be denoted in the IPA either by a superscript gamma (ˠ) after the affected symbol or by a swung dash/tilde through it, so ⟨r̴⟩ and ⟨rˠ⟩ are equivalent. In practice, however, ⟨ɫ⟩ is the only letter where the superimposed tilde is at all common. Most linguists use the superscript gamma for all other consonants just to make texts easier to read. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all – I've now added the [ˌrˠu ˈɾo-əˌniʃ] pronunciation. Zacwill (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]