queenwaffle
New Member
Czech
I want to ask what characteristics do Slavic languages have that are different from the other Indo-European language families?
... nuz to preto, lebo Slovanske jazyky su synteticke, kdezto anglictina je analyticka.
I always found this definition highly problematic - firrst of all, because of difficulties in defining "completion". I personally prefer to proceed from how the verb looks when placed on the timeline: if it can be reduced to a singular point, it will be by default perfective. Some perfective verbs denoting complex actions may be difficult to pinpoint like that, but it's equally difficult to label them as 'completed actions'. Most notably, that refers to the perfective Russian verbs that are productively formed from basic non-motion & multidirectional motion verbs with use of po-: "to do the specified activity for some time and abandon it". They don't specifically imply that the activity is non-resultative (e.g. я немного поработал лопатой и убрал весь снег), but if it is, it can be started again from the point where it was terminated.depending on whether the action is completed (perfective verbs) or uncompleted (imperfective verbs)
How would you reduce the situation of "the light came on" to a singular point - on the timeline?if it can be reduced to a singular point, it will be by default perfective.
Slavic languages also lack the Subjunctive mood 1) and the Conditioanl mood is extremely simple (at least in Russian), hence the hyphotetical period and the sequence of tenses are generally a walk in the park in Slavonic languages compared to other languages such as: Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, but also English and German. (In my humble opinion)Slavic languages lack articles, although at least in some of them demonstrative pronouns are occasionally used to do the job.
What's the implied change of state for стукнуть ('to hit a single time'), for example? On the other hand, transition processes which cannot be pinpointed and essentially engulf the temporal focus will be obviously imperfective. So no, I don't think the idea of change of state can explain the aspect very productively.The perfective always implies a change of state (be it completion, inception, or a stand-alone act)
How do you know that it is a single act? You know that because there is a final, resultant, state after that - the state where the knock is over, otherwise you could not tell a single act from continuous knocking. Knocking as such is self-identical and therefore endless, as any meaning.What's the implied change of state for стукнуть
Because it's a single, complete elementary sequence which started and finished. However, when we represent it with a perfective verb, normally we aren't specifically concerned with the moment at which it was finished; rather we imagine the whole action as momentary, at least by default (you still can ask "how long it took", but normal adverbial constructions of duration cannot be directly applied to such verb, which is quite remarkable).How do you know that it is a single act?
Well, no doubt that it is single and complete, but I was asking about how do you know that it is - how this singularity is actually implemented within the contextual timeframe. How do you know that that single knock has not been followed by some other knocks? It is because the resultant state is continuous, that is, non-breaking - and, it is such because it has focus: it is the main meaning. The resultant state - or the relevant period of time, if you like - is the essential part of the meaning making the act single. For a physical object like an apple, you also know that it is single just because everything around it, which is available to your eyes, is not an apple; but with an apple, you still could continue staring at the apple's body after that - whereas with a complete action, you have to switch to the final state, want it or not - just because the time is running; so the final state appears as the current, actual meaning. The question "when?", with a perfective verb, is always about the resultant state - regardless of your concerns about that moment. Just try to convey that something happened at the very moment of "knock" - you would need an additional rephrasing "at the very moment when my hand touched the surface" or like that.Because it's a single, complete elementary sequence which started and finished.
It well might be, but they would simply lie outside of the timeframe we consider in the sentence and are irrelevant for it; all we're talking about in it is a singular sequence.How do you know that that single knock has not been followed by some other knocks?
I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here. What would be the alternative?It is because the resultant state is continuous, that is, non-breaking
No one said they cannot, but you cannot pinpoint them on the timeline. "I saw him at 4:45" literally just says that you were seeing him at the specified moment; it doesn't really say (though it well might imply) that you weren't continuously seeing him from 4:43 to 4:47. The practical choice of the imperfective aspect here seems mostly dictated by the usage of the particular perfective counterpart, which would literally mean "started to see at 4:45", and that would usually require some more specific context (though often the distinction of usage is blurry here and the ultimate choice will be arbitrary).The imperfective can also convey a technically single thing. I was there, I saw him at 4.45 at the corner, I met him once - all these are imperfective (at least in Russian)
For instance, the English Perfect. It also suggests a final state in the present time (assuming a lexically resultative action), but, whether it is a unique action or a sequence, depends on the context - because we have two separate segments of tenses, and, the "body" of the action, residuing in the past segment, is denoted by the same preterite form allowing both a single action and a cycle. On the other hand, the perfect continious gives us a non-breaking "body" of the action - its processual part. And, roughly speaking, the perfective form does the same trick for the final state of the action, which appears non-breaking. The perfective is never about the action's "body". It denotes its resultant state only, while the subtleities of the transition are lexical, mostly encoded by affixes, as well as that whether the action has both the beginning and end, like the punctive verbs or those prefixed with по-, or, it represents only the basic switching of states, such as "came" (where the initial process has no beginning and so the action can't be "reduced it to a single point" - if you think of the moment of transition as this minimal point, it makes no sense alone, without the preceding motion).I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here. What would be the alternative?
So you think that the fact that видел cannot be pinpointed and увидел can, means that the latter can be reduced to a point? Again, it is a transition between two states of affairs "I can't see him" and "I have seen him (now I have his image in my brain, I have an idea of his location, and so on)". You cannot isolate the moment of transition and say - okay, I have reduced it to a single point: this point is nothing without the preceding "non-seeing" and the following "having-seen" (and the precise time specification refers to the final state, anyway). It is a connection of two mutually exclusive states. The imperfective видел, on the other hand, represents a single state of seeing, but, I agree that it also cannot be a single point - just because you still need two points in time, to make a conclusion that it is a self-identical thing. Everything is dual.but you cannot pinpoint them on the timeline.
Transitional between two states always can be fundamentally pinpointed.Again, it is a transition between two states
It can; I didn't say that it cannot, the question is only whether referring to this effect is enough for a definition of the perfective function. When you are mentioning this pinpointing, is still not about that the pictured action (more precisely, situation) as a whole can be reduced to a point, but rather about that some sort of "center of mass" can be located on the timeline - and then, what you actually referring is not the very boundary but rather an infinitesimal piece of the resultant state, starting right after the transition.Transitional between two states always can be fundamentally pinpointed.
In case of knocking the action is naturally momentary indeed. However I would be more inclined to say that the speaker simply does not care, how much time the action needed - like in your earlier example with the work: "popracowałem trochę". It's definitely not momentary - I just don't care how much time it took.Because it's a single, complete elementary sequence which started and finished. However, when we represent it with a perfective verb, normally we aren't specifically concerned with the moment at which it was finished; rather we imagine the whole action as momentary, at least by default (you still can ask "how long it took", but normal adverbial constructions of duration cannot be directly applied to such verb, which is quite remarkable).
Probably it's because for our Slavic minds the aspect is a lexical phenomenon rather than grammatical.Btw, I have been watching a Youtube channel about Russian sign language - the lady hosting the channel seems to be an expirienced translator - and it's interesting that in the video dedicated to tenses, she started with that there are four tenses in the sign language: present, future, and - two for the past: one of them is preсeded with the sign "already", and another with the sign "was", and, it's clear, from her further explanations, that these are actually projections of the aspects. Of course, sign languages have their own specifics, but it is quite telling that she highlighted that "process vs result" dichotomy; in contrast, in the videos about American sign language I've watched, I didn't see any accent put on that: instead, the tutors start with the general idea of tenses on the timeline, with the past associated with the area behind and the future with that to the front, and, it seems like there is a strong reliance on time adverbials and various contextual additions there, bound to common patterns. It is interesting, if the sign languages in other Slavic countries are also biased towards aspects.
I'd say it depends on what we call lexical and grammatical. Actually, it is rather a mix. If we take the prefixed forms, derived from a trivial imperf. form, that yes - these have an admixture of additional lexis, because prefixes are themselves lexial elements (or, better said, they mark additional semantics needed for the perfective aspect, as the resultant state cannot be represented by the vacuum: it needs a specific meaning in each case). But on the other hand, the relationship between perfectives and the secondary imperfectives (like that between "podpisać" and "podpisywać") is purely grammatical in that sense that it is only about the aspect - no additional semantics is involved. The issue is that the term "grammatical" is rather used for forms, whereas "lexical" is rather about meaning; but I personally prefer to consider any functions as semantics of different levels - even the parts of speech. So, aspects are low-level semantics, and everything marked by prefixes or related to the specificities of the basic process encoded in the stem, is an additional semantic admixture on the top of the aspect.Probably it's because for our Slavic minds the aspect is a lexical phenomenon rather than grammatical.
For me the prefix (in this case) is just a tool, not the merit. So is the infix in your example. "Czytać" and "przeczytać" are two distinct verbs. So are "podpisywać" and "podpisać". They have slightly different meanings, and they even behave differently from the grammatical standpoint. For example, the latter verb in each pair does not have the present tense, and the former forms a compound future tense rather than a simple future tense. As far as I can recall, In the Russian language it works alike, if not identically.I'd say it depends on what we call lexical and grammatical. Actually, it is rather a mix. If we take the prefixed forms, derived from a trivial imperf. form, that yes - these have an admixture of additional lexis, because prefixes are themselves lexial elements (or, better said, they mark additional semantics needed for the perfective aspect, as the resultant state cannot be represented by the vacuum: it needs a specific meaning in each case). But on the other hand, the relationship between perfectives and the secondary imperfectives (like that between "podpisać" and "podpisywać") is purely grammatical in that sense that it is only about the aspect - no additional semantics is involved. The issue is that the term "grammatical" is rather used for forms, whereas "lexical" is rather about meaning; but I personally prefer to consider any functions as semantics of different levels - even the parts of speech. So, aspects are low-level semantics, and everything marked by prefixes or related to the specificities of the basic process encoded in the stem, is an additional semantic admixture on the top of the aspect.
Well, no objection that a prefixed verb is a distinct verb lexically; I see no disagreements with your position here, but it is not the same with the infix (or more precxisely, with a secondary form that is derived from a perfective; because it can be formed in some other way). I see "podpisywać" and "podpisać" as counterparts with a "one-to-one" relation, which relation is purely aspectual, and the effects you are describing are as well aspectual - any perfective form naturally is incompatible with the present tense (although our Czech and Slovak friends use the perfective pres. form for a habitual action, but I suppose it is rather some influence of their preterite-using neighbours). On the other hand, a prefix is not just a marker of the aspect, but is always bound to a certain additional semantics.For me the prefix (in this case) is just a tool, not the merit. So is the infix in your example. "Czytać" and "przeczytać" are two distinct verbs. So are "podpisywać" and "podpisać". They have slightly different meanings, and they even behave differently from the grammatical standpoint. For example, the latter verb in each pair does not have the present tense, and the former forms a compound future tense rather than a simple future tense. As far as I can recall, In the Russian language it works alike, if not identically.