Hello. Proto-Indo-European lacked a verb for "have". Instead, it used dative+be or genitive+be constructions, like Latin "mihi est", Greek "moi esti" or Sanskrit "mama asti". The "have" verbs in different IE branches are all independent evolutions from unrelated verbs usually meaning "take", "hold", "keep", "win" etc. English "have" (*kap) and Latin "habere" (*ghabh) are similar by coincidence. In Schleicher's fable, the genitive is used: (roughly) *owis kwesyo wlna ne est = sheep whose wool was not = a sheep which didn't have wool. What made many of the IE branches change from "mihi est" to "have" structure? Is it an European sprachbund (areal) feature like the usage of articles? Note that Sanskrit, which was spoken far away from Europe, lacks the "have" verb completely. Why haven't the Finno-Ugric languages picked up the "have" structure yet? By coincidence? The "have" structure clearly has nothing to do with language families (IE, Finno-Ugric), considering the lack of common root of the "have" verbs in IE languages. The Baltic-Finnic branch of Finno-Ugric has picked lots of IE (e.g. adjective agreement), European sprachbund (e.g. the perfect tenses formed with auxiliary+past participle) and Germanic grammatical features (e.g. consonant gradation/Verner's law), yet not the "have" structure, although there seems to be a "seed" of development towards "have" in Finnish. The verb "omata" is used marginally. I guess the preservation of the "at me is" structure is an areal feature with Russian (which modified the IE dativus possessivus "to me is" structure to "at me is" supposedly due to the same sprachbund). The Celtic branch of IE also uses structures similar to Russian and Baltic-Finnic. Is there a "have" verb in Basque? Could someone make a world map about "mihi est" and "habere" languages?