Slovak: prísť <=> prichádzať/prichodiť // ísť <=> ísť?

[Concise]

Hello,

this time I just need a sort of confirmation.

1. Is it correct that while prísť has its own imperfect form(s), ísť can be used both as perfect and imperfect verb?

2. Or only chodiť can be used as the imperfect form of ísť?

If 1 is true then how can one grasp any difference between ísť as imperfect verb and chodiť?

thanks in advance

 

[numerator]

Welcome back Aspect in verbs of motion is a bit of a mess. I'll do my best to answer your question quickly and hopefully someone will expand or correct my response.

Ísť is primarily imperfective, focusing on the action.
But it can be used as perfective too sometimes - for example, the action is thought of as completed in sentences such as "Po štúdiách išiel do Prahy." or "Išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár."
The dictionaries say the verb ísť can be "also prefective" (i dok.) when it means going somehere with a purpose:
Slovenské slovníky
In both my examples, a prefixed perfective verb would work too (odišiel do Prahy, vyšiel som do kuchyne).

Chodiť primarily means repeated action. "Často chodí na výlety."
But it can be used instead of ísť in negative sentences, or with vôbec "at all" (expressed or implied): Musíš tam ísť. / Nemusíš tam chodiť. You have to go there. You needn't go there. Načo som sem (vôbec) chodil? Why have I come here (at all)?
And it also supplies the imperative forms for ísť: choď (instead of obsolete or dialectal iď), nechoď (along with nejdi).

 

[Concise]

I have not learnt the imperative, but I am a bit curious as always whether there is a meaningful difference between iď/choď and poď.

 

[numerator]

I am a bit curious as always whether there is a meaningful difference between iď/choď and poď.

Yes, there is! I'd say it's roughly along the lines of English go and come, or Hungarian menj and gyere: choď (niekam preč) vs. poď (sem).

A harder question would be when to use poď vs. príď. Poď is used for an immediate invitation "come here (now)" and in poď so mnou, poďme spolu "come with me", "let's go together".
To invite someone to meet at a different time or place, we use príď, or also (somewhat more colloquially) dôjdi: Príďte/Dôjdite ku mne zajtra na večeru.
This difference seems somewhat related to Hungarian gyere and jöjj (el) but it's not the same (cf. Gyertek el vacsorára holnap.)

 

[Concise]

Sorry, it was a sort of “trap question”.

The different directions of choď and poď had been evident.

Because the online dic had made it clear:

“ísť ide idú iď!/choď! (smerom preč)/poď! (smerom sem) idúc (i)šiel bud. pôjde pôjdu zápornejsť nejde nejdú nejdi!/nechoď! nešiel nedok.”

In fact I was curious that why poď could be found at ísť and not at prísť? Together with príď, as it is with choď and iď.

But you gave me some details regarding this curiosity, too. Even if it is still strange a bit for me that poď is classified as an imperative form of ísť.

 

[numerator]

Oh, you are right, I did not even notice that!
On first impulse, I would definitely put poď under prísť if I were writing a dictionary.
But I guess then I would miss the "accompany me" submeaning, and also the fact that poď can be an imperfective imperative (Poď, poď, poď... = "keep coming closer" or "keep coming along", focusing on the process rather than a goal)...

Semantics is hard

 

[Concise]

Poď, poď, poď... = "keep coming closer" or "keep coming along", focusing on the process rather than a goal)...

Sure, but if not prísť, because the focus is on the process, then prichádzať and prichodiť are still closer to the meaning of poď then prísť is. At least if I think in the traditional way about directions. In Hungarian not just “jöjj”, but “gyere” (“jer”) is closer to “jön” then to “megy”. Or in English it is closer to come than to go.

Off

In the meantime found a post on a Hungarian forum

“Gyere az a jerből származik.

Jer! = Gyere! = Jöjj!

Gyertek = jertek, a jöjjetek az újmódibb huncutság.

S ez a j szókezdő nem feltételezés.

A jer ma is élő szó, legfeljebb kicsit régies.

A gyerében pedig lehet, hogy már az ide is benne van, azaz gyere = jer ide! Ne csak úgy jöjj errefelé, hanem ide gyere.”

De ez ma már nem egyértelmű, ezért persze a gyere ide is jó.

 

[Concise]

Poď is used for an immediate invitation "come here (now)" and in poď so mnou, poďme spolu "come with me", "let's go together".

I would miss the "accompany me" submeaning,

But maybe the reason is just as you said. Poď not just has the meaning of “gyere” as “jer ide”, but also that of “gyere EL”. So it can refer to both “sem” (like in “Gyere ide hozzám”) and “preč” (“Gyere el hozzám”) in Slovak making it an imperative imperative with a sort of dual meaning (ísť and prichádzať/prichodiť).

 

[numerator]

But that's the thing! Poď can be used to invite movement towards the speaker in the present (poď sem = come here = gyere ide) or to accompany the speaker (poď so mnou = come/go with me = gyere velem).

But "gyere el" as in "come and join me - at a different time, or at a different place" is definitely príď, not poď:
Príď ku mne zajtra.
Príď, kedy len budeš chcieť.
Príď k mostu, o chvíľu sa tam stretneme.

BTW, poď is apparently etymologically related to pôjdem (which is used as the future tense form of ísť) so that may be another reason it's considered a form of ísť? I agree that semantically it's much closer to prísť/prichádzať/prichodiť and that's where I would expect to find it in a dictionary.

 

[Concise]

Just a correction from me to feel eased

Sure, but if not prísť, because the focus is on the process, then prichádzať and prichodiť are still closer to the meaning of poď then prísť is.

I meant “….then ísť is.”

Finally a feedback: discussing and understanding this was a real real fun for me. Thank you for participating in it!

 

[Concise]

I have re-read our discussion again, because I faced this sentence:
“Už ide hlavný cašník.”, and the context made it clear that its meaning is “the head waiter is already coming (and not going).

Although we analyzed the prefective forms of ísť, see eg.

“ísť ide idú iď!/choď! (smerom preč)/poď! (smerom sem) idúc (i)šiel bud. pôjde pôjdu zápornejsť nejde nejdú nejdi!/nechoď! nešiel nedok.”,

I still feel that in our discussion it was not explicity stated that when one has to use “ide” with the meaning of “come”/“be coming” when we would like to express the process, that is one thing is sure: imperfective form is needed.

Since it seems that in my head there is still a mess regarding verbs of motion, I just ask it simply: “ide” is the only good solution in this case? Prichádzať for example?

 

[Concise]

I found a pretty good resource, because there is some limited Hungarian in it, too, http://pf.ujs.sk/documents/2018-03-09_2018.03.06_Toth_Aspekty_Nyomdaba_Belivek.pdf.

But it made just even clearer that why príde is not good in this case, but I found not a straightforward explanation why prichodí or prichádza would not be good. So the latter two are also correct, I assume. But if so, is there any difference eg. between these sentences?

1. Vlak už prichádza.
2. Vlak už prichodí.
3. Vlak už ide. (sem, a nie preč)

EDIT: I found another source, from page 202 in https://www.juls.savba.sk/ediela/sr/1999/4/sr1999_4.odt, but without having it translated by google translate I feel that although it must be interesting, but it is not exactly about what I would like to understand.

 

[francisgranada]

... is there any difference eg. between these sentences?

1. Vlak už prichádza.
2. Vlak už prichodí.
3. Vlak už ide. (sem, a nie preč)

Approximately:

Vlak už prichádza - "the train is arriving" (a vonat már érkezik, "már érkezőben/jövésben van", i.e. nem sokára itt lesz ...)
Vlak už ide - "the train comes" (a vonat már jön, nem tudni mikor érkezik meg, de már elindult ...).
Vlak už príde - "the train will come [soon]" (a vonat már [nem sokára] eljön/megérkezik ...)
Vlak už prichodí - not used, not idiomatic.

 

[Concise]

Thanks, but if I regard these two

Vlak už prichádza - "the train is arriving" (a vonat már érkezik, "már érkezőben/jövésben van", i.e. nem sokára itt lesz ...)
Vlak už ide - "the train comes" (a vonat már jön, nem tudni mikor érkezik meg, de már elindult ...).

Then why “Už ide hlavný cašník”.?

The context was that two people were sitting at a table in restaurant having decided what to order and one said it.

Why not “Už prichádza hlavný cašník”. If I see a head waiter is coming, walking toward me, I know very well that it is just a question of seconds that he will be here.

Sorry for being so stubborn, but isn’t the sentence I originally cited is simply an incorrect one?

 

[francisgranada]

Why not “Už prichádza hlavný cašník”. If I see a head waiter is coming, walking toward me, I know very well that it is just a question of seconds that he will be here.

This is good as well, especially when I see the waiter already coming (as you have correctly mentioned).

“Už ide čašník” is practically the same, but maybe I don't yet see him ...

All in all, in practice these nuances are not always explainable "exactly" ...

 

[Concise]

Accepted.

 

[Sobakus]

Thanks, but if I regard these two



Then why “Už ide hlavný cašník”.?

The context was that two people were sitting at a table in restaurant having decided what to order and one said it.

Why not “Už prichádza hlavný cašník”. If I see a head waiter is coming, walking toward me, I know very well that it is just a question of seconds that he will be here.

Sorry for being so stubborn, but isn’t the sentence I originally cited is simply an incorrect one?

I don't speak any Slovak, but hopefully my explanation is still correct. prichádzať is a telic, goal-oriented process (= an accomplishment), since it's a prefixed verb back-formed from the perfective prísť to be able express the same meaning but in the imperfective aspect. The focus is on achieving the final state, and so prichádza means “is completing his arrival, is near and about to arrive, is in the final stage of coming here”.

ide on the other hand is not concerned with any goal or result, but only with the process of movement, and simply means “is walking, is on his way”. The seemingly goal-oriented translation is coming is specific to English, which distinguishes between come for movement towards and go for movement away. ísť has no semantics of goal-orientedness, and isn't similar in any way to its contextually-determined English translation.

 

[Concise]

So for the sake of simplicity I am going to regard prichádzať et al as imperfective, but almost perfective verbs. I hope that this simplification does not distort too much compared to the real, subtle explanation.

 

[Sobakus]

So for the sake of simplicity I am going to regard prichádzať et al as imperfective, but almost perfective verbs. I hope that this simplification does not distort too much compared to the real, subtle explanation.

This depends entirely on what you mean by regarding something as imperfective, perfective or almost perfective, and can range from a useful or unhelpful simplification to absolutely catastophic. But since I don't know what it means or what real-world consuequences it might have, I cannot evaluate how useful or disastrous this approach is.

I can say, though, that I don't think my explanation is in need of further simplification if one understands perfectiveness correctly: prichádzať is the imperfective equivalent of prísť that has identical (goal-oriented) meaning but opposite aspect. The prefix pri- is mostly responsible for that goal-oriented meaning.

There's no perfective verb whose meaning is identical to the non-goal-oriented imperfective ísť – which is partly why this verb is sometimes used as a perfective.

 

[Concise]

It was a wise answer from you, indeed.

I really dont know why it takes so much energy for me to easily handle the field of perfectiveness. Especially in case of verbs with prefixes.

In my mother language, Hungarian, there are many prefixes as part of verbs, similarly to Slavic languages.

Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that in case of languagues it is easier to understand and apply those rules of languages being learnt which are really different from those in your first/mother language than apply those rules which are a bit different, but at the same time they are similar, too.

 

[Sobakus]

Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that in case of languagues it is easier to understand and apply those rules of languages being learnt which are really different from those in your first/mother language than apply those rules which are a bit different, but at the same time they are similar, too.

I think you're right when it comes to consciously applying rules – being really different means being easy to spot and apply a conscious transformation-type rule to. But gradual differences are way easier to acquire and internalise as part of internal grammar, which is what language learning is really about, while conscious rules is a temporary workaround on the way to acquisition.

The trouble with Slavic aspects is that there are primary and secondary imperfectives. Most perfectives are formed to primary imperfectives by adding prefixes, but the resulting verb naturally ends up having a much more specific meaning, which is defined by the prefix. Then if you want to express this exact meaning in the imperfective, you have to form a secondary imperfective to the prefixed perfective – and this is exactly what we have here. Thankfully, this is where the chain stops, as there is perfect equivalence in meaning between a perfective and its secondary imperfective. In contrast to this, probably no prefixed perfective means exactly the same thing as the primary, non-prefixed imperfective that is usually listed in the dictionaries as its pair – it's simply a good enough aspectual match most of the time. In fact, many primary imperfectives can be said to have multiple corresponding prefixed perfectives depending on the final state of a given activity, forming not pairs but entire networks. Verbs for cooking should serve as a good example.

 

[francisgranada]

Fully agreeing with the perfect explanation of Sobakus, I’d like to add the following:

I think these „complications“ with the usage of ísť, prísť, prichodiť, prichádzať … for a non native speaker are primarily due to the fact, that in Slavic languages the verbs „go” and „come“ derive from the same root: ísť, prísť (<pri+ísť) . See the different roots, for example in Eng. go/come, Hu. megy/jön, Sp. ir/venir, etc …

The verb „ísť ” provided with a prefix (prísť, odísť, zájsť , výjsť ....) when conjugated in present tense, it has automatically a future meaning or “aspect”. This happens (logically) in some other languages as well. (E.g. the Hungarian “elmegy” also refers rather to the future and not to “right now”).

So the “solution” is the secondary imperfective, which is de facto an "iterative / continuative". E.g.:
Čašník (práve) prichádza = The waiter is coming/arriving (right now) – continuative
Čašnik stále prichádza pozde = The waiter always (repeatedly) comes/arrives late - iterative

 

[Sobakus]

While grateful to francisgranada for his kind words, I would like to question whether it's helpful to equate ísť, prísť with “to go, come”.

If Slovak is anything like Russian, then these words specifically refer to pedestrian movement, at least outside of some idiomatic combinations, like with trains or ships. There should be no single verb that means “to go, move” or “to come, arrive” regardless of the type of movement, and on the flip side, no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”. So ísť, prísť shouldn't be abnormal but fit with all the other movement verbs like letieť/priletieť, viezť sa/doviezť sa etc. All of these can be translated with “to go” and “to come”, but that's not their actual meaning. And it's not just verbs of movement either – many other verbs should fit the same pattern and allow forming secondary, prefixed imperfectives.

I would suggest completely avoiding the use of the verbs “come” or “arrive” in trying to explain aspects in verbs of movement. Maybe this would help us avoid the exact problem that Tisztul_A_Visztula describes here:

Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that in case of languagues it is easier to understand and apply those rules of languages being learnt which are really different from those in your first/mother language than apply those rules which are a bit different, but at the same time they are similar, too.

 

[Sobakus]

By the way, these come-go verbs are called deictic verbs. They express the orientation of motion in relation to some deictic center, normally the speaker or the addressee. Most Slavic languages don't possess these verbs, although Bulgarian and BCS seem to. Normally, Slavic languages express motion-from or -towards using prefixes, while the verbal root expresses Manner of motion. This type of languages is known as Satellite-framed (the prefix is the satellite expressing Path).

These contrast with Verb-framed languages like Spanish, that express an event like Буты́лка заплыла́ в пеще́ру/A bottle floated into the cave as La botella entró a la cueva (flotando), lit. “The bottle entered [to] the cave (floating).” Similarly, “to run into the room” will be expressed as entrar corriendo. So the same verb expresses Path, while Manner is only expressed when necessary using the various manner expressions/adverbs.

So in the same vein, prísť may be translated into English as “to come by walking”, priletieť “to come by flying”, and doviezť sa “to arrive by transport”.

For more details check the wiki article on Verb-framing. Beware of some descriptions that unhelpfully mix together Path and Deictic orientation. Many languages express them separately, and even the English to come out/go in is a great illustration of this.

 

[Concise]

I think you're right when it comes to consciously applying rules – being really different means being easy to spot and apply a conscious transformation-type rule to. But gradual differences are way easier to acquire and internalise as part of internal grammar, which is what language learning is really about, while conscious rules is a temporary workaround on the way to acquisition.

Your answer seems to be wise again, because it made clear for me that in desperate situation of non-understanding I simply need those bl**dy temporary solutions, but it is not the right way to learn languagues in the long term.

Nevertheless let me highlight that although I know that my learning process is much longer than the others, the way how I am looking for not just simple rules, but sub-rules and sub-sub-rules etc. helps me to experience lots of tremendous (or just simply substantial ) realizations, which I really like, and which gives me motive power to learn on.

The trouble with Slavic aspects is that there are primary and secondary imperfectives.

Sure, I realized on my own that while I was looking for the perfective pair of an imperfective verb without prefix, (or vice versa), like in case of dávat' (or dat'), sometimes I could find the pair verb without any prefixes, and I was happy that it was so simple. But the majority of the verbs work in a different way.

By the way as far as I remember I met much more imperfective verbs without prefixes than perfective ones, so typically I started to look for the perfective form. And again ideally without any prefixes. I felt that I needed to find them, because in the long term having imperfective-perfective pairs of verbs will help me not to be lost in the wild forest of Slavic verbs.

Q1: Do you think whether it is a good strategy to learn verbs in pairs?

An example: when I met pálit', which is imperfective, first I realized that there was no perfective without prefixes. In the second step, during my pair-search I found more than one perfective verbs with prefixes, like popálit', pripálit' etc.

My strategy was to check all the perfective verbs whether they had an imperfective form. So when I found pripal'ovat' I excluded pripálit' from the list. Finally there was only popálit' which seemed to not have an imperfective form. So I double checked what its exact meanings are, and if one of its meanings was in line with at least one of the meanings of pálit' I recorded it as pairs. I mean pálit'+popálit'. Of course, sometimes with notes to highlight that based on their meanings they are not fully pairs, but at least partly.

Q2: Is it a good method to identify the pairs? Or is it a false approach and there is much more easy way to do that? Or again (Q1) does it make any sense to hunt for pairs?

Most perfectives are formed to primary imperfectives by adding prefixes,

I read the remaining part of this longer paragraph 4 or 5 times, but did not understood perfectly. I started to feel that maybe I didn't understand this quoted part. And I am sure the reason lies in (my or your) English.

Q3/a: Do you mean perfectives are formed FROM primary imperfectives by adding prefixes?

The word "TO" in the position of my "FROM" totally confuses me. Moreover I realized that you must have used it consciously, see "you have to form a secondary imperfective to (!) the prefixed perfective", so I was looking for "form to" in English dictionaries, but found no relevant structures.

As a next attempt I supposed that you simply meant "to" to be "next to" or "to be a pair of". This interpretation would work, because it would mean that perfective are formed FROM primary imperfectives TO BE THE PAIR OF THE LATTER.

Q3/b: But am I right? Please help me with it, because I guess it makes no sense to spend more time with the analysis
of your answer before being sure that I correctly understand this sole sentence.

As a sidenote I know the prefixed verbs are formed not only from imperfective verbs. See dat' => pridat' and dávat' => pridávat'.

Q4/a: But what about those perfective, non-prefixed verbs which do not have an imperfective, non-prefixed pair? Can they have a prefixed form with an imperfective approach? Or adding any prefixes to any perfective verb means that the result is always a perfective verb?

Q4/b: Or is there any non-prefixed perfective verbs without having a non-prefixed imperfective form???

FrancisGranada's post:

I think these „complications“ with the usage of ísť, prísť, prichodiť, prichádzať … for a non native speaker are primarily due to the fact, that in Slavic languages the verbs „go” and „come“ derive from the same root: ísť, prísť (<pri+ísť) . See the different roots, for example in Eng. go/come, Hu. megy/jön, Sp. ir/venir, etc …

To be frank, yes, it was part of my story. I immediately realized that príst' comes from íst', and yes, it made me think a lot.

The verb „ísť ” provided with a prefix (prísť, odísť, zájsť , výjsť ....) when conjugated in present tense, it has automatically a future meaning or “aspect”. This happens (logically) in some other languages as well. (E.g. the Hungarian “elmegy” also refers rather to the future and not to “right now”).

While I understand your remark related to Slovak and to some other languages, let me share that for me who is a native Hungarian, "elmegy" in itself has a strong present aspect, too, not just the future one. Even when it is not happening now, it will be going to happen immediately.

Using the present form, "elmegy" can be really an answer to a question made about the future using "fog"/"majd", "El fog menni?- Igen, elmegy", but if there are no precedents made in any future forms then I don't use "elmegy" to refer to future. Otherwise I would confuse my audience.

So the “solution” is the secondary imperfective, which is de facto an "iterative / continuative". E.g.:
Čašník (práve) prichádza = The waiter is coming/arriving (right now) – continuative
Čašnik stále prichádza pozde = The waiter always (repeatedly) comes/arrives late - iterative

I am very happy that you made a remark about iterative, because during my pair-search in those cases when the first verb I met was perfective (dok. in the dictionary) and I was looking for imperfective form (nedok. in the dictionary) I often found words classified as "opak." (typically words ending with -ávat').

Sometimes it happened that there were no nedok., just opak.

Therefore I started to wonder where the border of iterative/opak. verbs and imperfective/nedok. forms. How can it be that there is a perfective form, no imperfective form, just an iterative form.

Q5: Or in Slovak should I simply regard opak. as a sub-class of nedok.? And it is just a question of marking system, because the dictionary could also state a word like nedok.+opak.? And never like dok.+opak.?

Back to Sobakus:

If Slovak is anything like Russian, then these words specifically refer to pedestrian movement, at least outside of some idiomatic combinations, like with trains or ships. There should be no single verb that means “to go, move” or “to come, arrive” regardless of the type of movement, and on the flip side, no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”. So ísť, prísť shouldn't be abnormal but fit with all the other movement verbs like letieť/priletieť, viezť sa/doviezť sa etc. All of these can be translated with “to go” and “to come”, but that's not their actual meaning. And it's not just verbs of movement either – many other verbs should fit the same pattern and allow forming secondary, prefixed imperfectives.

I would suggest completely avoiding the use of the verbs “come” or “arrive” in trying to explain aspects in verbs of movement.

I hope it is the right English term, but I guess you nailed it, Sobakus. It has been, is and will be pretty tough not to convert in my mind the meaning of íst' as "come" and "go" , but I guess omitting it is the way to follow.

Let me focus on one of your sentences in this part again. This one:

There should be no single verb that means “to go, move” or “to come, arrive” regardless of the type of movement, and on the flip side, no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”.

You mentioned the key is the pedestrian movement, which can happen to any direction if we use "íst'" without using any prefix. It is clear for me.

You wrote 'there should be no single verb that means "to go, move" or "to come, arrive"...'

Q6/a: Did you mean that Slovak/Russian/Slavic languagues do not require any verbs with a sole meaning of "to come" or with a sole meaning of "to go", based on the logics of these languages?

Q6/b But there are some, aren't they? When I use "pri-", so príst' or prichádzat', then the direction is restricted. I don't feel that these two verbs has anything with "to go", just with "to come". Or did I miss something?

The second part of your comment is that '.. and on the flip side, (there should be) no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”..."

Q7: I feel I understand that why one verb is enough to express the meanings of "to go out" and "to come out", but what is the actual situation? Is there only one verb with this pseudo-dual meaning, or the fact is that in real life there are two verbs to express "to come out" and "to go out", respectively?

 

[Concise]

Note: I tried to make one post, but I ran into the restriction of max. 10000 characters, even after shortened the quotes, so the final part of my answer is here, separatedly.

And the masterpiece.

By the way, these come-go verbs are called deictic verbs. .....

This analysis made me relax that generally I understood your other comments made earlier than this post, and the answers to my questions marked with "Q6" and 'Q7" should simply confirm my understanding. If you have not mistyped anything in English, then either my English was not good enough, or my concentration was too bad when I was reading those of your sentences which triggered Q6 and Q7.


Note 2: I know the previous one is a murderously long post, but I felt it would be good to unite the earlier separated comments into one post, either to close all the open questions, or if my understanding is still wrong then to open new ones.

 

[Sobakus]

Sure, I realized on my own that while I was looking for the perfective pair of an imperfective verb without prefix, (or vice versa), like in case of dávat' (or dat'), sometimes I could find the pair verb without any prefixes, and I was happy that it was so simple. But the majority of the verbs work in a different way.

Yep, that's because there are primary (non-prefixed) perfectives as well, but they're a closed class (new ones can't be formed) and limited in number. They generally go way back to when there wasn't the modern aspectual system, so dávat' was iterative intead of imperfective, and dat' was like “give” in your average European language.

Iteratives are just a sub-class of imperfectives in Slavic, and when there isn't a separate iterative the normal impf. covers that function (to answer your question to francisgranada). I doubt there's ever an iterative-only impf. without a non-iterative one.​

Q1: Do you think whether it is a good strategy to learn verbs in pairs?

Surely you want to know the nearest aspectual pair when learning a new verb. But ideally it should just be given in the dictionary. I see however that in this one only perfective ones are given a pair. Is it because the authors don't think there's a canonical perfective pair to most impf. verbs? Russian dictionaries always give the pf. correspondence, several if necessary.

Q2: Is it a good method to identify the pairs? Or is it a false approach and there is much more easy way to do that? Or again (Q1) does it make any sense to hunt for pairs?

Good method when dictionaries are being mean. You should soon recognise the patterns of default, most unmarked prefix selection depending on the verb's meaning. For ex. po- often means “to do for a time and then stop”, so it's likely to be unmarked with verbs that have no natural end-point (states/activities). It doesn't look like you mind being stuck in a dictionary any way :-) (me neither, reading a monolingual dictionary is a great way to build the mental lexicon)

Q3/a: Do you mean perfectives are formed FROM primary imperfectives by adding prefixes?

Yes, more or less “to be the pair”. “to” and “from” can equally be used with “forming”, the former expressing future goal, the latter past source. I was focusing on the goal, i.e. creating a paired verb.

Q4/a: But what about those perfective, non-prefixed verbs which do not have an imperfective, non-prefixed pair? Can they have a prefixed form with an imperfective approach? Or adding any prefixes to any perfective verb means that the result is always a perfective verb?

Adding prefixes to a perfective will never net an imperfective in Russian, so presumably in Slovak too.

Q4/b: Or is there any non-prefixed perfective verbs without having a non-prefixed imperfective form???

I'm sure a handful can be found, but should be super rare. I would expect there to be more bi-aspectual verbs. I think veliť is an example of the latter, despite nedok. – see phrases.

Q6/a: Did you mean that Slovak/Russian/Slavic languagues do not require any verbs with a sole meaning of "to come" or with a sole meaning of "to go", based on the logics of these languages?

Exactly that – these meanings are already expressed partly through prefixes, partly through the aspectual system.

Q6/b But there are some, aren't they? When I use "pri-", so príst' or prichádzat', then the direction is restricted. I don't feel that these two verbs has anything with "to go", just with "to come". Or did I miss something?

The difference is that the movement they express isn't centered on the speaker or the adressee. They express approaching some goal, but not moving towards or away from one of the participants of the conversation. In contrast, in English you can “come away” towards the speaker's current location or “go in” away from it.

Q7: I feel I understand that why one verb is enough to express the meanings of "to go out" and "to come out", but what is the actual situation? Is there only one verb with this pseudo-dual meaning, or the fact is that in real life there are two verbs to express "to come out" and "to go out", respectively?

I don't think there are two separate verbs to express this in any Slavic language. It's conceivable that Bulgarian could have it because it's the closest to the Romance-type Verb-framed system due to Balkan Sprachbund influence. But these verbs mostly arise in Bulgarian from prefixed verbs when the prefix loses its separate meaning and the whole acquires a new composite meaning, as in идвам/дойда “come” and отивам/отида “go”, or прибирам се/прибера се “to go home” (aspectual pairs). I don't think you can attach another prefix to them to get “to go out” or “to come out”. You'd have to use adverbs.

Phew, I hope I've managed to cover all of your questions, but I'll happily answer any that remain!

 

[Concise]

First of all thanks for both closing the items I have opened and opening new ones, although the latter is a bit painful to my brain, .

I doubt there's ever an iterative-only impf. without a non-iterative one.

This will be my assumption too, until somebody will have cracked it.

I'm sure a handful can be found, but should be super rare

I checked all my notes written in my old fashioned dictionary booklet where I gathered all the Slovak words I have ever faced, and found none. So it is not a proof yet that it is super rare, but an evidence it is really not common.

Surely you want to know the nearest aspectual pair when learning a new verb. But ideally it should just be given in the dictionary

But not in my printed dictionary, which is not monolingual, but a bilingual (Slovak-Hungarian). And its meanness is the main reason why I had to rely on online, monolingual dictionaries.

Good method when dictionaries are being mean

So, let’s call my approach a desperate, but justified one.

It doesn't look like you mind being stuck in a dictionary any way

Is it so obvious that I am a bit beyond 3 sigma?

see however that in this one only perfective ones are given a pair. Is it because the authors don't think there's a canonical perfective pair to most impf. verbs? Russian dictionaries always give the pf. correspondence, several if necessary.

So it seems only some native Slovak can explain why I can easily find the imperfective form/pair of the non-prefixed perfective verbs in this dictionary, and why in case of primary imperfective verbs there is no clear assignment refering to a prefixed perfective verb as a dedicated pair.

But let me add, because maybe you have not checked enough words that in case of many primary imperfective verbs some prefixed perfective ones are listed in fact, but as you wrote almost never just one (otherwise I could not play my approach detailed earlier).

Exactly that – these meanings are already expressed partly through prefixes, partly through the aspectual system.
The difference is that the movement they express isn't centered on the speaker or the adressee. They express approaching some goal, but not moving towards or away from one of the participants of the conversation. In contrast, in English you can “come away” towards the speaker's current location or “go in” away from it.

Before talking about your sentence impling my Q7, I wish to close Q6.

If I say thaf ísť simply means “to be on the move“ or “to change position in a pedestrian way” and prísť/prichádzať means “to arrive to a place in a pedestrian way”, do I fully cover your sentence which implied my Q6/a and Q6/b or did you want to express with it some more subtle details implicitly?

I mean the following sentence as a trigger of Q6s:

There should be no single verb that means “to go, move” or “to come, arrive” regardless of the type of movement, and on the flip side, no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”.

Note: Let me highlight that I remember you advised not to use “to arrive” for prísť/prichádzať, but your definition “to come by walking” contains “come”, which confuses me again.

Q8: btw a question about your terminology: when you referred to “single verb”, do you mean ísť+prísť to be still a single verb, because prísť is just a prefixed form of the former, or you regards them two verbs.
Or (and it came to mymind only now) you simply meant “no single” as “none”/“not any”? ;-)

 

[Concise]

I tell you all a secret, I have read all the posts of the thread many times. Actually I read them after every new post just to check whether my newer and newer understanding is in line with all the comments of you, Slavic native speakers.

And I caught something:

Ísť is primarily imperfective, focusing on the action.
But it can be used as perfective too sometimes - for example, the action is thought of as completed in sentences such as "Po štúdiách išiel do Prahy." or "Išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár."
The dictionaries say the verb ísť can be "also prefective" (i dok.) when it means going somehere with a purpose:
Slovenské slovníky

ide on the other hand is not concerned with any goal or result, but only with the process of movement, and simply means “is walking, is on his way”.

ísť has no semantics of goal-orientedness, and isn't similar in any way to its contextually-determined English translation

There's no perfective verb whose meaning is identical to the non-goal-oriented imperfective ísť – which is partly why this verb is sometimes used as a perfective.

You can imagine how I feel now. No, not boastful, just sad. I feel I stepped back in my mission to get a clear picture. At least for the perfective usage of ísť, which was my very first question in the thread.

 

[Sobakus]

Before talking about your sentence impling my Q7, I wish to close Q6.

If I say thaf ísť simply means “to be on the move“ or “to change position in a pedestrian way” and prísť/prichádzať means “to arrive to a place in a pedestrian way”, do I fully cover your sentence which implied my Q6/a and Q6/b or did you want to express with it some more subtle details implicitly?

I think this covers it.

Note: Let me highlight that I remember you advised not to use “to arrive” for prísť/prichádzať, but your definition “to come by walking” contains “come”, which confuses me again.

Yep, I noticed that, but that “come” corresponds to the prefix pri-/do- and depends on the contextual interpetation wherein the end-point of the motion coincides with the location of the speaker. Anyway, maybe my suggestion was a practical impossibility after all :]

Q8: btw a question about your terminology: when you referred to “single verb”, do you mean ísť+prísť to be still a single verb, because prísť is just a prefixed form of the former, or you regards them two verbs.

Or (and it came to mymind only now) you simply meant “no single” as “none”/“not any”? ;-)

I meant that there should be no single verb that can be used regardless of manner of movement, one “come” for pedestrian, vehicular, aerial, naval, running, jumping etc. movement, or one “go”. No deictic movement verbs.

I tell you all a secret, I have read all the posts of the thread many times. Actually I read them after every new post just to check whether my newer and newer understanding is in line with all the comments of you, Slavic native speakers.

Then I'm writing this for the right person, because that's exactly how I write my replies as well, which I then copy-edit, sometimes even after several hours xD

And I caught something:

You can imagine how I feel now. No, not boastful, just sad. I feel I stepped back in my mission to get a clear picture. At least for the perfective usage of ísť, which was my very first question in the thread.

I love how you express this To be honest, it's been a while since I've explained Slavic perfectiveness, and with my choice of words probably fell into the most frequent trap: failing to properly separate syntactic constituents (objects, complements, adjuncts) from aspect, i.e. how the action is metaphorically conceived from the inside. There's another difficulty, namely that this verb can't be used perfectively in Russian, but the paradigm of pôjdu is used in the past (pošёl, pošlá, pošló). But this seems only a formal difference, basically the past tense in Slovak just happens to be missing the prefix for whatever reason.

Anyway, having an object or a goal adjunct has nothing to do with perfectiveness. The internal structure of an imperfective verb simply doesn't have a final end-point, so biť koňa means “to be hitting the horse” and the action is considered completed when you stop hitting it – no end-point or result is specified in the internal structure of the action. In the same way, ísť do práce, na koncert, zo školy means “to be in the process of pedestrian movement towards/from”.

Then what does išiel som do kuchyne actually refer to, you might ask? Again, I don't speak Slovak, but I'm pretty sure it refers to the start of movement: “I've successfully started my pedestrian movement towards the kitchen; I've set off and am on my way there”. And this is the actual difficulty with Slavic verbs of movement, in that the default perfective ones, normally prefixed with po-, refer to the start of movement without specifying Path, while other prefixes generally specify Path, i.e. what end-point, what final state should be reached for the action to be considered completed.

Now I'm wondering, how do you say “I was walking home” as opposed to “I went home” in Slovak?

 

[francisgranada]

Now I'm wondering, how do you say “I was walking home” as opposed to “I went home” in Slovak?

Išiel som domov. Odišiel som domov.

(Approximately, as e.g. "I was walking" for me means also "prechádzal som sa", "išiel som peši" and who knows what else ...)

 

[Sobakus]

Išiel som domov. Odišiel som domov.

(Approximately, as e.g. "I was walking" for me means also "prechádzal som sa", "išiel som peši" and who knows what else ...)

So does išiel som do kuchyne, keď Michal doniesol pohár express concurrent/simultaneous actions, and išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár a sequence of events? Or does the first one mean “I left for the kitchen when...”, i.e. a sequence of punctual events?

 

[Concise]

Išiel som domov. Odišiel som domov.

(Approximately, as e.g. "I was walking" for me means also "prechádzal som sa", "išiel som peši" and who knows what else ...)

I am happy and pleased that I fully understand this post.

I guess I should decrease the level of my curiosity to the level of this sort of examples, otherwise I would go mad .

 

[Sobakus]

I am happy and pleased that I fully understand this post.

I guess I should decrease the level of my curiosity to the level of this sort of examples, otherwise I would go mad .

I'm wondering though if you fully understand the points I made in my last message, namely that 1) aspectual end/goal-orientedness (terminativity) is completely separate from the verb having a syntactically expressed object or a direction/purpose adjunct, or generally from verbal (in-)transitivity, valency = argument structure etc.; and 2) that in movement verbs, the default perfective verb designates the start of movement, and this is the meaning that the dictionary is referring to, as in išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár.

 

[Concise]

Frankly speaking I put it apart from a day or two, because I need a fresh brain to deal with it. But you can be deadly sure that I will either confirm this understanding or I will ask for more.

And really many thanks for all the efforts you people made in order to give a big chance for me to understand these things.

 

[francisgranada]

So does išiel som do kuchyne, keď Michal doniesol pohár express concurrent/simultaneous actions, and išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár a sequence of events? Or does the first one mean “I left for the kitchen when...”, i.e. a sequence of punctual events?

From the practical point of view:

"išiel som do kuchyne, keď Michal doniesol pohár" is a bit ambiguous ... To make the sense clear, in practice one would say something like this:
"išiel som do kuchyne, práve keď Michal doniesol pohár" > simultaneous actions
"išiel som do kuchyne, až keď Michal doniesol pohár" > sequence of events (first Michal, then me)

"išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár" > intuitively, two contemporaneous events. Practically it means "iśiel som do kuchyne, aby som tam doniesol pohár".

(However, this sentence is questionable from the logical point of view ...).

Q5: Or in Slovak should I simply regard opak. as a sub-class of nedok.? And it is just a question of marking system, because the dictionary could also state a word like nedok.+opak.? And never like dok.+opak.?

Only nedok.+opak. seems to be logical... But I am not perfectly sure, because the verbs sometimes have their implicit meaning and/or aspect .... (At the moment I am not able to give you any meaningful example)

 

[Concise]

So, I am here with it:

separate syntactic constituents (objects, complements, adjuncts) from aspect, i.e. how the action is metaphorically conceived from the inside.

I got it.

There's another difficulty, namely that this verb can't be used perfectively in Russian

Will remember…

but the paradigm of pôjdu is used in the past (pošёl, pošlá, pošló).

First small uncertainty in my side: why does Sobakus mention past (tense)? A perfective verb in Slavic languages can be used in past (past form) and in the future (present form)

But this seems only a formal difference, basically the past tense in Slovak just happens to be missing the prefix for whatever reason

Remark on prefix is clear, but again why past tense is highlighted?

Anyway, having an object or a goal adjunct has nothing to do with perfectiveness.

Sure, clear.

The internal structure of an imperfective verb simply doesn't have a final end-point, so biť koňa means “to be hitting the horse” and the action is considered completed when you stop hitting it – no end-point or result is specified in the internal structure of the action.

Clear.

In the same way, ísť do práce, na koncert, zo školy means “to be in the process of pedestrian movement towards/from”.

Sure, we are still speaking about imperfective usage of ísť.

Then what does išiel som do kuchyne actually refer to, you might ask? Again, I don't speak Slovak, but I'm pretty sure it refers to the start of movement: “I've successfully started my pedestrian movement towards the kitchen; I've set off and am on my way there”. And this is the actual difficulty with Slavic verbs of movement, in that the default perfective ones, normally prefixed with po-, refer to the start of movement without specifying Path, while other prefixes generally specify Path, i.e. what end-point, what final state should be reached for the action to be considered completed.

If it refers to the start then it is the perfective usage. But I dont get how the heck one can know it facing išiel som do kuchyne only. Without having any context how do you know it does not express the imperfective usage, “ I was on the way to the kitchen”??

 

[Concise]

I'm wondering though if you fully understand the points I made in my last message, namely that 1) aspectual end/goal-orientedness (terminativity) is completely separate from the verb having a syntactically expressed object or a direction/purpose adjunct, or generally from verbal (in-)transitivity, valency = argument structure etc.; and 2) that in movement verbs, the default perfective verb designates the start of movement, and this is the meaning that the dictionary is referring to, as in išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár.

2 was clear. I guess 1 was too, but it became a bit complicated, because you rephrased it, and I still have to understand what valency really means in grammar. Fyki I have no other knowledge than the basic grammar learnt in high school 35-30 years ago.

 

[Sobakus]

First small uncertainty in my side: why does Sobakus mention past (tense)? A perfective verb in Slavic languages can be used in past (past form) and in the future (present form)

The main reason is that, although dictionaries and at least one website call pôjdu “bud(úci čas)” of ísť, which is imperfective, I assumed – correctly, as far as I can tell – that this is in fact a perfective future form. In Russian this form is part of a totally normal, separate perfective verb пойти́, пойду́, пошёл (like полете́ть, полечу́, полете́л “perf. to fly”). It seems that in Slovak, the verb suffered some violence and only its future tense remains in use, still perfective, but without a full paradigm, which is why it appears in the dictionaries in the entry for ísť.

This lack of a full-fledged perfective pair is precisely why išiel is used in both aspects, although I'm not sure what caused what.​

​

A secondary reason is that past tense usage is simply the easiest way to tell perfectiveness. In BCS perfectives can even be used in the present.

If it refers to the start then it is the perfective usage. But I dont get how the heck one can know it facing išiel som do kuchyne only. Without having any context how do you know it does not express the imperfective usage, “ I was on the way to the kitchen”??

And here our minds finally unite in harmony, because my question to the fabric of the Universe at this stage is precisely the same The aim of this reply was to get closer to answering it – I (successfully it seems) tried to come up with a basic sentence where different aspects would be used depending on the meaning in Russian, i.e. I tried creating a situation of aspectual contrast. The fact that francisgranada calls that sentence ambiguous tells me that ísť is truly a biaspectual verb, but only in the past tense it seems. Russian also has biaspectual verbs, so I should have no problem in understanding the Slovak usage if I simply think of those. 2 such examples are веле́ть/велю́/веле́л “to will, command”, жени́ться/женю́сь/жени́лся “to take a bride”.

Judging by these Russian biaspectual verbs, as well as by the example usage of išiel here and in the dictionary, context is precisely how you tell its aspect, just as if the language had no aspectual distinction at all and the only past tense could refer to ongoing as well as punctual actions. In theory, without context you wouldn't know, but in practice, 1) there's no language without context, and 2) context is almost always sufficient. When more precision is required, there's odísť & co.

However, there's something that isn't clear to me:

"išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár" > intuitively, two contemporaneous events. Practically it means "iśiel som do kuchyne, aby som tam doniesol pohár".

(However, this sentence is questionable from the logical point of view ...).

I used @numerator 's example sentence and didn't expect it to be logically questionable.

1. Why is it? Perhaps I don't understand the sentence correctly; does it mean “I went to the kitchen and brought the glass there”? It would essentially be one complex event expressed by two verbs, and I suppose the logical problem is that without tam “there”, it seems like a sequence of two separate actions, and the second action happens after I'm at the kitchen, so I end up bringing the glass to the kitchen while I am at the kitchen. Is this correct?
2. Can it mean “I went to the kitchen and brought the glass here, from the kitchen”? Or is the correct verb for this priniesť?
3. Does numerator also see the sentence as logically questionable? Might he offer us any further clarification in our inquiries?

Finally, another test sentence. In išiel som do parku a stretol som kamaráta is the meaning “I went and met (unexpectedly)”, “I went and met (I knew he was there)”, or “I was on my way to the park when I suddenly met him”?

 

[Concise]

All the sentences that I dont react to are fully clear for me.

Just some small items:

A secondary reason is that past tense usage is simply the easiest way to tell perfectiveness

Why? But before going on let me ask whether you meant it as a general truth being valid for all the verbs.

A) If so then I dont understand you.

When I see a present form of any Slovak verbs it can be either a present tense usage of an imperfective verb, or a future tense usage of a perfective verb. And in case of biaspectual verbs the problem is that they are technically identical, they have no different forms to show their aspects, just one form .

So I dont get your point.

B) If not then you presumably referred to exclusively ísť, right?

The present form of ísť (idú & kids ;-) ) only tells us that either “it goes now with” an imperfective aspect in present tense, or it has a perfective aspect now, but then we face a future tense usage.

Without context no chance to decide.

So practically the same as in case ´A’.

Bonus:
Pôjdu as the imperfective future tense (but bearing the typical atrribute of a perfective verb “po-/pô-”) does not play since it as a form carries just the imperfective aspect/usage.

So far so good so what?

In BCS perfectives can even be used in the present.

As in Hungarian.

However, there's something that isn't clear to me:

I let it be a topic discussed by you, Slavic chaps.

 

[francisgranada]

Why is it? Perhaps I don't understand the sentence correctly; does it mean “I went to the kitchen and brought the glass there”? It would essentially be one complex event expressed by two verbs, and I suppose the logical problem is that without tam “there”, it seems like a sequence of two separate actions, and the second action happens after I'm at the kitchen, so I end up bringing the glass to the kitchen while I am at the kitchen. Is this correct?

“I went to the kitchen and brought the glass there”

Yes, that's how I spontaneously interpreted this sentence, without any other context.

In other words, "išiel som do kuchyne" supposes that I was not only "walking" to the kitchen, but I have also arrived there. Now, being in the kitchen, I could not consequently bring the glass to the kitchen (from some other place) without leaving the kitchen once again ... A simple logical way to express the idea would be "Doniesol som pohár do kuchyne".

Can it mean “I went to the kitchen and brought the glass here, from the kitchen”? Or is the correct verb for this priniesť?

Yes, it can. A simple practical way to express this idea would be "Doniesol som pohár z kuchyne".

The verb "priniesť" does not change radically the possible interpretation, however "psychologically" it could suggest better the idea that I brought the glass from the kitchen to the place where I was before going to the kitchen.

**********************************
The possibility of the two different interpretations might be due to the following (it is only an idea):

1. I perceive/view all the sentence from "where I am", e.g. from the living room. So "Išiel som do kuchyne" means "I left the living room for the kitchen" and "Doniesol som pohár" means "I brought the glass to the living room".

2. "Išiel som do kuchyne" practically supposes that I have arrived to the kitchen. From this point mentally I perceive/view the situation "from the kitchen". So "Doniesol som pohár" means "I brought the glass to the kitchen".

(My formulations are terrible, but it's a bit difficult to explain nuances of Slovak using English .... )

Finally, another test sentence. In išiel som do parku a stretol som kamaráta is the meaning “I went and met (unexpectedly)”, “I went and met (I knew he was there)”, or “I was on my way to the park when I suddenly met him”?

In my opinion in theory all these interpretations are possible. Spontaneously, without any context, I'd say "when I arrived to the park (then) I met my friend" (unexpectedly or not).

BTW I have a strong feeling that we are trying to explain the exact meaning of sentences/expressions that are a priori ambiguous or not well formulated or not clear without any further context ... Plus, I am not sure whether the usage of the conjunction "a" is logical or correct in all the above discussed cases ...

 

[francisgranada]

Using the present form, "elmegy" can be really an answer to a question made about the future using "fog"/"majd", "El fog menni?- Igen, elmegy", but if there are no precedents made in any future forms then I don't use "elmegy" to refer to future. Otherwise I would confuse my audience.

Of course. The fact that in Hungarian we can make difference between elmegy and el fog menni is a "plus grammatical possibility". In Slovak **bude odísť is grammatically impossible, thus the form pôjde covers both elmegy and el fog menni.

****************************
In agglutinative languages like the Finno-Ugric, the verbal prefixes typically maintain their original adverbial meaning and therefore they can be used also separately. This fact explains (at least partially) the different usage of prefixes in Slovak and Hungarian. For curiosity, see the following:

XY most elmegy = XY teraz odíde
XY most megy el = XY teraz odchádza

 

[vianie]

Vlak už prichodí - not used, not idiomatic.

prichodiť is a dialectal and bookish word

as well as dochodiť, nachodiť, nadchodiť, obchodiť, odchodiť, pochodiť, podchodiť, prechodiť, predchodiť, schodiť, uchodiť, vchodiť, vychodiť, zachodiť ...

some of the -chodiť verbs bear also different meaning than the corresponding -chádzať verbs: už dochodil, nachodil sa už dosť, pochodil všetky hory sveta, pes ktorý zle pochodil etc. etc.

 

[francisgranada]

In Russian this form is part of a totally normal, separate perfective verb пойти́, пойду́, пошёл (like полете́ть, полечу́, полете́л “perf. to fly”). It seems that in Slovak, the verb suffered some violence and only its future tense remains in use, still perfective, but without a full paradigm, which is why it appears in the dictionaries in the entry for ísť.

In standard Slovak pôjdem, pôjdeš, pôjde ... are simply used and perceived as the future of ísť. Yes, it is still perfective as it is prefixed. The supposed infinitive *pôjsť in standard Slovak is not used.

For curiosity:

In some Eastern Slovak dialects the verb pujsc (infinitive, similar to the Polish pójść) still exists, as well as the forms pošol, pošla, pošlo, etc ... Pujsc is the perfective equivalent of isc (= ísť, to go).

 

[numerator]

I am way out of my depth with the more theoretical parts of this discussion, so let me just react to a few points where I feel I do have something to contribute:

1) As for my example sentence "Išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár":

Does numerator also see the sentence as logically questionable? Might he offer us any further clarification in our inquiries?

I meant it to mean "I went to the kitchen and brought a glass (from the kitchen)". Just what I would do if someone told me "Choď do kuchyne a dones pohár". In my mind, the action was also clearly completed.
I was very surprised to see that other interpretations are even thinkable

2)

pôjdem, pôjdeš, pôjde ... are simply used and perceived as the future of ísť. Yes, it is still perfective

I disagree with characterizing pôjdem as (only) perfective, as you can specify the duration of the action: Pôjdeme tam dve hodiny, which is not possible with true perfectives (*Vyjdeme tam dve hodiny.)

Pôjdem is thus part of a happy family of po- prefixed verbs expressing the future: poletím/pobežím/ponesiem/poveziem/potrvá... except that with these other verbs, the regular composite future is also possible: Poletíme tam dve hodiny = Budeme tam letieť dve hodiny, while the form *budem ísť is for some reason taboo.

3) Now about this pesky perfective ísť. What's its future tense, idem or pôjdem? I'd say pôjdem. But maybe idem too.
I would understand Idem na poštu as referring to the present only, while Pôjdem na poštu is clearly future.

But... saying Zajtra idem na poštu po balík seems to work just as well as Zajtra pôjdem na poštu po balík.
But but... it's difficult for me right now to disentangle this usage from the way imperfectives can also be used to mean the immediate/planned future, such as "Zajtra odchádzam". So I'll just leave it at that.

4) Does the perfective ísť refer to the completion of the whole "going action" or just the completion of starting the action, as Sobakus suggests, equivalent to the Russian пойти́?

I can see it both ways.

I can imagine reading Ráno išiel na poštu po balík (a už ho nikto viac nevidel) in a missing person report but I can also imagine Ráno išiel na poštu po balík (a potom odviezol dcéru do školy) in a list of someone's completed morning activities, with the package successfully picked up at the post office.

If a family member called me and asked Išiel si už na poštu po ten balík? I would understand it as asking about whether I have picked up the package, not merely whether I am on my way to do so. But I also admit that a more likely formulation would be Bol si už na pošte po ten balík?
(And for the question asking whether I have initiated movement, Vyrazil si už na poštu po ten balík?)

5) I feel I am reaching the limits of my linguistic intuitions here. And it's quite possible that my Hungarian-speaker intuitions are interfering with my Slovak-speaker intuitions. Even the esteemed Sobakus might be influenced by his Russian intuitions.
Perhaps other foreros who grew up speaking only Slovak may want to chime in.

 

[Concise]

Pôjdem is thus part of a happy family of po- prefixed verbs expressing the future: poletím/pobežím/ponesiem/poveziem/potrvá... except that with these other verbs, the regular composite future is also possible: Poletíme tam dve hodiny = Budeme tam letieť dve hodiny, while the form *budem ísť is for some reason taboo

Today I met with “popláva” while checking whether there was a perfective pair of plávať (no there wasn’t) and I also felt myself to be in this happy family for a moment.

 

[Concise]

For ex. po- often means “to do for a time and then stop”, so it's likely to be unmarked with verbs that have no natural end-point (states/activities). It doesn't look like you mind being stuck in a dictionary any way (me neither, reading a monolingual dictionary is a great way to build the mental lexicon)

I was searching for a straightforward answer to the question what the very exact difference is between poutierať sa and utrieť sa (note: it is clear that utierať sa is the primary imperfective, utrieť sa is the primary perfective), in other words what the prefix po- adds to the meaning of the primary perfective verb.

And I found this book, https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-Case-of-Slavic.pdf?origin=publication_detail which seemed to be a precious resource, at least to me, so I decided to share it, maybe it will be useful for somebody else, too.


Although there is a full chapter, namely chapter 5 dedicated to po-, until now I have not figured which option I should choose.

First I thought it could not be the pure perfectivising po-, because a primary perfective verb exists (utrietť sa), so maybe it has a diminutive meaning, that is the act of drying using a towel was far from perfect, it was just a bit of drying made in a hurry.

But having checked the online dics Slovenské slovníky I started to feel that is acts in a multiple way, both as pure perfectivising po-, at least it confirms that the meaning of poutierať is exactly the same as utrieť (meaning 2) and as distributive (meaning 1).

Is my second bet OK?

 

[numerator]

I think in "poutierať sa" would go under meaning 1 (surface) in that publication.
"To towel off, all over", so to speak.

 

[Concise]

If so (see “all over”) then at least it is partly confirmed by some (not all) online dics, because these ones use the word “dôkladne” in their definitions.

 

[Concise]

I'm sure a handful can be found, but should be super rare. I would expect there to be more bi-aspectual verbs. I think veliť is an example of the latter, despite nedok. – see phrases.

Today I found another one: venovať sa.

And also today I found another pearl among perfective verbs, dodržať, not because it is grammatically AC/DC, no, it is just perfective, but “he” has 3 imperfective pairs wives: dodŕžať, dodržiavať and dodržovať.

I hope no offence taken by my female helpers for this innocent joke.