"Невозможно сделать" означает невозможность довести дело до конца, но не означает, что невозможно им заниматься или хотя бы начинать.Я знаю,что, вообще говоря, "нельзя + св" = невозможно, а "нельзя + нсв = запрещено".
Какая разница между невозможно делать и невозможно сделать?
"Невозможно сделать" более конкретно?
Thanks!You can make plenty of examples with imperfective:
Yes, but the focus here is on "когда выпадал снег" (~ 'every time the snow had fallen'), which is (subjectively) seen as one particular situation. And what really matters is the result of one's actions in that situation (that is, the result of that 'making').The question is why the imperfective form 'заставля́ть' is not correct here (true?). I'm not sure because, it seems to me, the process of making him (=forcing him) to sit at home is extended in time.
The imperfective is not something extended in time, it is something that is a set of iterations. Don't think of time scale at all; it is rather an English approach, not Russian.The question is why the imperfective form 'заставля́ть' is not correct here (true?). I'm not sure because, it seems to me, the process of forcing him to sit at home is extended in time.
It may be either (as long as semantically applicable). I don't see any set of iterations in "дверь сейчас открывается", for instance. Ultimately i'd say the key definition of imperfectiveness is just the lack of perfectiveness.The imperfective is not something extended in time, it is something that is a set of iterations.
Why? I mean iterations not in a context of so called iterative aspect but in common sense, as cyclic phases.I don't see any set of iterations in "дверь сейчас открывается", for instance.
And what's cyclic about it?Why? I mean iterations not in a context of so called iterative aspect but in common sense, as cyclic phases.
The door is moving towards its open state, you are watching phases of this process and, at each moment, you can see it advances a little more
Knocking is different, being an inherently repetative activity, which is actually reflected in verbal morphology (note that its closest perfective counterpart is formed with the -ну- suffix, which specifically denotes singular fragments of repetative activities).We hardly can say that someone is knocking if there was a single knock; we need at least two of them.
Hmm? The meaning, provided by the aspect. What is cyclic about walking, if you are not making circles? Let's forget about feet alternating, and take just 'moving'. It is cyclic because your 'delta X' is changing. Your location and surroundings are changing, but the verb itself does not tell what they are exactly. They are just new at each step, and it is what is repeated in this case, this is the iteration. The function x^2 tells that for each x, y will be x^2, and this is the fact which repeats itself - but the function does not care of the actual value of x.And what's cyclic about it?
Yes it is. I'm sorry for being obscure (drunk already), I mean that, in the case of moving, the repeated thing is the very increment of your position, as well as update of your surroundings. This change repeats again and again. It is not something that is changing after a number of phases gone. The change is the very essence of a single phase. But, phases are identical. I believe this is more or less what semantics of imperfective is about; anything else is lexical.Er... "Cyclic" basically means "containing positions or states which are repeated over and over again", isn't it?
Yes, but the focus here is on "когда выпадал снег" (~ 'every time the snow had fallen'), which is (subjectively) seen as one particular situation.
And what really matters is the result of one's actions in that situation (that is, the result of that 'making').
Constructions such as "невозможно (or: можно, нужно, etc.) было заставлять..." usually emphasize that there were (or: could/should have been) repeated attempts to make someone do something, often in a series of situations:
Also note that "невозможно (or: нельзя, недопустимо. etc.) было заставлять..." would often convey the lack of permisson or a moral right to force someone to do something
Right! A possible use of the perfective form could be: Меня всякий раз тоже нужно было (взять и) заставить.1.IMP. В детстве я был совершенно обычным ребенком, не то что сидел, читал. Меня тоже надо было заставлять.
Imperfective because being forced was a recurring event.
Yes. But personally, I'd still imagine "заставлять" here through possible repeated situations which were supposedly going to happen to her. Use of the perfective verbal counterpart is impossible here.2.IMP. Светлана чувствовала себя легко и свободно, потому что теперь ей не нужно было заставлять себя сдерживаться.
Imperfective because (not) forcing herself takes place in an extended period of time.
Yes, but note that we can't be 100% sure that the person isn't talking about more than one situation.3.IMP. Не надо меня было заставлять говорить, тебя это не касается…
Imperfective because the action of forcing to speak is seen as a continuous process (perhaps a series of "speak! come, on! go on, then!")
Right. "Взять и заставить" is theoretically possible here (which emphasizes that a/each/any single event is under consideration).1.PF Он, Сталин, никогда не был особенно по-человечески привязан к Молотову, но ценил его чрезвычайно. Молотова, например, невозможно было заставить сорваться.
This structure is similar to the original sentence, so the same considerations should apply. The verb after заставить, сорваться, is perfective here so I suppose the image it gives is of 'throwing a fit' as a single event, rather than 'being angry for a while'.
Absolutely.2.PF Он всё время работал, его невозможно было заставить отдохнуть.
Same as 1.PF above. Here too the perfective verb at the end indicates resting is seen as a unique whole without internal structure (with the result of refreshing one's energies) rather than a process.
A single event, definitely ("этот стакан").3.PF Необходимо было заставить деда выпить этот стакан.
This is a much simple sentence and there's no doubt that perfective is appropriate here.
Well, I tried to explain that by the translation: "every time the snow had fallen".I don't really see how 'когда выпадал снег' is seen as a single situation.
Phrases as "Когда выпадал снег" are only additional modifiers of the described situation, you could replace them with adverbials like "прошлым летом", "часто", "в моём случае," - or just omit them telling about a particular single case. The main phrase matters. Of course, since we use 'each time', it cannot be based on a perfective which is about a single transition, so we use an imperfective, here было.And in fact also in the original sentence (Когда́ выпада́л снег, его́ невозмо́жно бы́ло заста́вить сиде́ть до́ма) (as far as I understand) there is the imperfective было. So I don't really see how 'когда выпадал снег' is seen as a single situation.
Very true.I think my original sentence is just very complex <...> because <...> the particle 'не' affects aspect choice [and] we have three verbs in a row.