Have you ever wondered if there is a connection between English have, German haben, and Latin habere?
Because they all mean the same and look quite similar…
Is it just a coincidence, or is there more to it?
Contents
False cognates & false friends
To be honest, I really don’t like that both terms are generally used interchangeably. For me, they are two different things:
- False cognates are those that seem to have the same root but don’t actually have an etymological connection, even if they have similar meanings. The fact that they look similar and mean something similar is just pure coincidence. The perfect example here, as we will elaborate on quite soon, is have/haben and habere.
- False friends can be either false cognates or true cognates, but, in any case, they mean two different things. An example of false friends from true cognates might be pretend ‘make believe, simulate’ and Spanish pretender ‘have the intention (to do something)’, both from Latin praetendere ‘to spread before / in front’. False friends from false cognates might be sin and Spanish sin ‘without’.
That having been said for my peace, let’s move on to the content you came for: Grimm’s law.
Do you love classics? Are you interested in Latin? Would you like to receive cool emails about that stuff? I’m quite sure you would: join the newsletter! 📧
English vs. Latin
It is generally accepted that English is a Germanic language; however, it has received a huge influence from Latin, either directly or (mostly) through (Norman) French.
If you came here looking for Grimm’s law, you definitely know a thing or two about Indo-European linguistics, and that both Germanic languages and Latin have a common ancestor, usually called Proto-Indo-European (PIE).
A very impressive number of English words —some claim it can be more than 50 or even 60 percent— are Latin borrowings (i.e. they have been borrowed more or less directly from Latin) or were adopted from French in the middle ages. Interesting as these are, they’re not what we came for.
What we’re here for are those words that have evolved for centuries and millennia, from PIE, and have done so in the Germanic languages and English on the one hand, and in Latin on the other hand. This is where Grimm’s law explains lots of interesting linguistic stuff.
This is the law that explains how it is possible that fish and piscis (cf. piscatorial), or foot and pes, pedis (cf. pedal, pedicure), or hundred and centum (cf. century) are all related and have a common ancestor, despite them being not very similar.
Please note: the cf. examples are merely illustrative so you can see better the connection between the words. The fact that piscatorial, pedal, and century exist in English is because they’re Latin borrowings.
Theory without practice is absolutely useless. With a one-time payment, you’ll have the full course forever, with all the theory explained in video and dozens of hours of practice analyzed and explained step by step by me on the screen.
Join the Latin from Scratch course! ⚡
Changes between Proto-Indo-European and the Germanic languages
We’re going to explain only one rule (and its addendum), Grimm’s law, that explains many many many of the hard differences between English and Latin words sharing the same PIE root, such as fish and piscis, etc.
The common name for this law has Grimm in it because it was Jacob Grimm, one of the famous Grimm brothers (the ones with the fairy tales), who, based on previous work by other linguists, formulated the law in a very systematic way.
Jacob said that PIE plosive consonants (which in Latin stayed pretty much unchanged) evolved, mutated, in the evolution of the Germanic languages. The changes might have started when the aspirated plosives lost their aspiration:
- */bʰ/ > /b/
- */dʰ/ > /d/
- */gʰ/ > /g/
In historical linguistics, an asterisk means that a sound, word, etc. is not attested, i.e. there is no actual evidence of it, but it’s what linguists have reconstructed thanks to all the science behind historical linguistics. In our case, the asterisk marks anything Proto-Indo-European.
Now, if old */bʰ/ has evolved into /b/, old /b/ has a conflict, so old /b/ also has to evolve into something else to avoid being absorbed by new /b/. Then, voiced plosives become voiceless:
- */b/ > /p/
- */d/ > /t/
- */g/ > /k/
And now again, old /p/ has a conflict with new /p/, so it has to evolve into something else. Then, voiceless plosives become fricatives:
- */p/ > /f/
- */t/ > /θ, ð/
- */k/ > /h/
Do you love classics? Are you interested in Latin? Would you like to receive cool emails about that stuff? I’m quite sure you would: join the newsletter! 📧
Comparison between Latin and English
With this knowledge, we can see through the differences between Latin and English. Unless specified or said otherwise, the Latin word means the same or pretty much the same or should be obvious to any English-speaking person.
| Latin | PIE */d/ > /t/ | English |
|---|---|---|
| decem | *déḱm̥ | ten < tehn |
| lingua | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s | tongue |
We would have expected Latin dingua (actually attested): lingua was probably influenced by lingere ‘lick’.
| Latin | PIE */g/ > /k/ | English |
|---|---|---|
| gelu | *gel‑ | cold |
Yes, gelu is related to gelato!
| Latin | PIE */p/ > /f/ | English |
|---|---|---|
| piscis | *peysḱ‑ | fish |
| plenus | *pl̥h₁(nós) | full |
| pes, pedis | *ped‑ | foot |
The one with full is a bit harder, but trust me on that one.
| Latin | PIE */t/ > /θ, ð/ | English |
|---|---|---|
| tres | *tréyes | three |
| pater | *ph₂tḗr | father |
| frater | *bʰréh₂tēr | brother |
The same spelling th represents two different sounds in English, as you can see in the examples.
| Latin | PIE */k/ > /h/ | English |
|---|---|---|
| cor, cordis | *ḱḗrd‑ | heart |
| canis | *ḱwṓn | hound |
The difference between */k/ and */ḱ/ has been ignored on purpose for simplicity.
These last three tables are actually more obvious in English than in Latin, where the evolution is more… unstable. Just trust me.
| Latin | PIE */bʰ/ > /b/ | English |
|---|---|---|
| fero | *bʰer‑ | bear ‘carry’ |
The verb in Latin appears with many prefixes such as transfer, refer, etc.
| Latin | PIE */dʰ/ > /d/ | English |
|---|---|---|
| foris | *dʰwṓr | door |
| ruber | *(h₁)rewdʰ– | red |
Latin foris is actually related to forum.
| Latin | PIE */gʰ/ > /g/ | English |
|---|---|---|
| veho | *weǵʰ– | wagon |
The difference between */gʰ/ and */ǵʰ/ has been ignored on purpose for simplicity. Latin veho is related to vehicle.
Theory without practice is absolutely useless. With a one-time payment, you’ll have the full course forever, with all the theory explained in video and dozens of hours of practice analyzed and explained step by step by me on the screen.
Join the Latin from Scratch course! ⚡
So what about have/haben and habere?
We’ve already mentioned that English have, German haben and Latin habere all mean the same: ‘to have’; also, they all happen to look very similar. However, while they are not false friends, they are false cognates…
According to what we already know, English have (and German haben) have a common PIE root *keh₂p-, which exists in Latin capere ‘take, seize, capture’ (capture actually comes from capere; also the [in]famous capisce?), but which is not the one in habere.
So what about habere? Its PIE root seems to be *gʰeh₁bʰ- (we saw that aspirated consonants have weird evolutions in Latin), and this root means ‘take, hold, maintain’. Some linguists claim this is also the same root we have in English give (German geben), but, despite the similarity, it’s really unlikely.
