Is "Я учусь русский" correct? And how to say "I teach Russian (i.e. I am a teacher)"?
Of course, Slavic languages developed their reflexive constructions in a somewhat different manner and those often acquired additional meanings (e.g. Rus. убира́ться - to clean the room; that's likely the result of the merger between *sę and *si in Russian), but their main meanings are still the old Indo-European ones: reflexive, passive, medium and reciprocal. And, certainly, in Russian they still cannot attach direct objects - because morphologically they already contain one (I was surprised to learn that it isn't so in Czech; at least in Czech the reflexive marker is still a clitic and even retains the dative variant, so it all looks considerably more archaic - but well...).I thought that to learn is учи́ться in Russian.
Is "Я учусь русский" correct?
In Standard (Literary) Czech:(I was surprised to learn that it isn't so in Czech; at least in Czech the reflexive marker is still a clitic and even retains the dative variant, so it all looks considerably more archaic - but well...).
I am familiar with the difference between imperfective and perfective aspects. I'd appreciate if you could compare only the imperfective verbs to make the explanation simpler."Выу́чивать" is an imperfective derivate from perfective resultative "вы́учить" (...)
E.g.: "обы́чно я́ выу́чиваю но́вый язы́к за́ год" (~"Usually it takes me a year to have a new language learnt.").
Учи́ть", on the other hand, is a general activity - "to be learning sth"
"Я́ учу́ неме́цкий" (I'm in the midst of learning German; either I am doing it right at the moment, or I have some time spent learning German and I am planning to learn it further anyway.)
In English, "to learn something by heart" (eg. to learn the rules by heart = to memorize the rules) and "to learn a secondary-school subject" (eg. to learn Math) are very different connotations. "to learn by heart" is usually used in English with things which are not understood, but rather 100% memorized, eg. the lyrics of a song, the elements of the periodic table, the names of the nominees to an Oscar. Learning a secondary-school subject is usually done by understanding it and requires little memorization. So, usually one would not "learn a secondary-school subject by heart" in English."Учить" in the meaning "to learn (often: by heart)" is colloquial/informal. It has a connotation of self-learning a secondary-school subject (as in preparing for a class at home):
Учи правила! Иначе гулять не пойдёшь! (a parent to their child, regarding the child's homework)
Still, "выучить" is neutral.
What is this сь ending ?Я учусь русскому. (=learn)Я учу русскому. (=teach)
I think it's a general tendency that if we have some basic imperfective verb which may denote both a processual activity and an iterative resultative activity (the latter often isn't the case; cf. лечи́ть), and some of its perfective derivates is different only in that it denotes a singular resultative event, then the imperfective verb further derived from it (if there is at least one) tends to be used in the iterative meaning only. E.g.:I'd appreciate if you could compare only the imperfective verbs to make the explanation simpler.
"Выу́чивать" is very unlikely, if not impossible, to denote an action in progress.The only difference I see between the 2 examples in the present tense that you provided is that one is talking about a present habit and the other one about an action in progress, but I guess that both verbs can be used in both situations?
Yes, but that colloquial meaning of "учить" very often (but not always) deals with memorization.Learning a secondary-school subject is usually done by understanding it and requires little memorization.
You're right!The aforementioned backgrounding conversion "учи́ть + acc. > учи́ться + dat." will work only for the first meaning:
Он учится у меня русскому языку.
Он учится отрывку из пьесы "Горе от ума".
@Awwal12, could you answer this question? You have used that distinction again in:What is the difference *in meaning* between "to have a new language learnt" and "to learn a new language"? (...) I think that the former is never used in English.
I do not understand the difference in meaning between the two constructs.(e.g. "о́н ча́сто у́чит языки́" still will be interpreted as "often he is learning languages" and not "he often gets languages learnt";
That makes more sense. Thanks for summarizing it!we could then systematize the above-mentioned meanings:
учить - 1. teach; 2. (colloquially) learn: a) study, b) learn by heart or fairly closely to the original text.
учиться - 1. learn, study; 2. take classes, go to classes.
I has to agree there may be no actual semantic difference in English between "to learn a language" and "to have a language learnt". Still, it should be obvious that a process of learning isn't the same thing as an event when you actually get something learnt as a result of learning. In principle, both can occur iteratively, but we are normally concerned only about sets of repetative events as opposed to singular perfective events and to various kinds of processual activities.I do not understand the difference in meaning between the two constructs.
(Just a thought)Я учусь русский. (a wrong case)
Я учусь русскому. (=learn)Я учу русскому. (=teach)
I think I understand it now. у́чить focus on the process and Выу́чивать focus on the result. I humbly suggest you explain it like this in the future to English speakers, as both ideas are expressed equally in it: to learn something ("to have sth learned" does not make sense in English IMHO because nobody can learn something for you).I has to agree there may be no actual semantic difference in English between "to learn a language" and "to have a language learnt". Still, it should be obvious that a process of learning isn't the same thing as an event when you actually get something learnt as a result of learning.
|I had my hair cut.||Someone cut my hair.|
|I’ve cut my hair.|
I’d cut my hair.
|I cut my own hair.|
Perfectives aren't perfects, to begin with (even though they MAY have a perfect meaning in Russian).Here are some nonacademic reflections on the matter:
учить (что делать?) ( ~what do I do?) -
Correct. Putting it in another words, "to have sth learnt" is a causative construction. It means that the subject has asked/ordered someone to learn for the former. That does not make any sense. This construction is usually used with other verbs, eg to have my hair cut, to have my car washed, to have my house cleaned. @Awwal12 has misused the causative construction here; what he really meant is that the focus of the verb is on the result of learning, not the process.A side note about to have a new language learnt.
This phrase actually differes much from to learn a new language. The base of to have a new language learnt is (to) Have something done. And it usually inditates what someone does for us (not what we do ourselves!).
I don't see why you think it must be exclusively causative. However, while "learned" and "learnt" must work equally well as the past participle, Google indicates a pretty strange disproportion between, say, "he has it learned" vs. "he has it learnt" and the like, the latter variant being really non-existent, though the former seems not uncommon (and by that I don't mean "not uncommon in twits of Japanese students and in Israeli newspapers").Correct. Putting it in another words, "to have sth learnt" is a causative construction.