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???
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?