# All Slavic languages: Slavic aspect vs. SP imperfect/EN progressive



## Diaspora

I am asking this question to speakers of English, Spanish and Slavic languages. 

Are the imperfective verbs in Slavic languages the same as the imperfect tense in Spanish? (for example, pricao sam-habl*aba*, pjevao sam-cant*aba*).

Do they correspond to the English progressive tense, -ing instead of -ed. (examples, pjevao-sing*ing*, pricao-talk*ing*)?


----------



## winpoj

I am not a speaker of Spanish, so I'll just answer your second question: No.


----------



## musicalchef

The imperfect tense in Spanish refers to actions which were ongoing, habitual, prolonged, or repeated *in the past*.  

My BCS textbook says that the imperfective aspect describes "an action in progress, a repeated action or the general fact of an action."  

I think the BCS imperfective aspect is MUCH broader than the Spanish imperfect tense.  For one thing, the Spanish imperfect can only describe the past.  Also, for the general fact of an action (in the past), Spanish would use the simple past, not the imperfect.


----------



## slavic_one

Imperfect is inperfect in any language. E.g. for BCS:
pjevati, pričati/izricati, piti/ispijati/otpijati, voziti/izvoziti/odvoziti, rušiti/urušavati, slušati/preslušavati.... while these are perfective: otpjevati/zapjevati, reći/izreći, popiti/ispiti/otpiti, provesti/izvesti/odvesti, srušiti/urušiti, odslušati/preslušati... (these are just some examples for both, there are many prefixes)

But far as I know, _pjevao/la/li_ can be both _was/were singing_ and _sang_!


----------



## texpert

Most Slavic languages have *lost the imperfect tense *(there is a single past tense in nearly all of them). 

However, they have retained a *grammatical aspect *(perfective and imperfective). It's a rather complicated matter, some of the verbs can have both aspects, some only one. 

The past tense of the imperfective verb may indeed correspond to the imperfective past tense in English: 
_zpívám _- I sing 
_zpívávám_ - I sing (repeatedly) 
_zpíval jsem _- I sang
_zpívával jsem_ - I used to sing 

But please don't go whoopee. _Zpívával jsem _is by no means equal to "I was singing" and _zpíval jsem _can mean "I sang", "I was singing" and "I used to sing" at the same time - depending on the context :-(


----------



## Diaspora

The thing is I am trying to develop a "grammatical relationship" between Imperfective concepts in my native Serbo-Croatian and Spanish which I am learning. Clearly, there is some kind of a relationship, as seen below, but as Musicalchef said quite limited.

Perfective

Sinoć *zapjevah*/Sinoć sam *zapjevao**
Anoche yo *canté*/Anoche he cantado
Last night, I *sang*./Last night, I've sang.

*as you now the BCS Perfect tense lost its historical meaning and now functions like the Preterite in Spanish, and Simple Past in English, the BCS preterite (aorist) is rare

Imperfective

Kad sam bio pjesnik *pjevao* sam./Kad bjeh pjesnik, ja *pjevah*.*
Cuando yo era un poeta, yo *cantaba*. 
When I was a singer, I *used to sing*.

*Both sentences are in Imperfective aspect, however the first one is in Perfect tense (=English Simple Past), while the second one is in Imperfect tense.

I hope I am not confusing anybody, if you speak Spanish you know what I am trying to say.


----------



## texpert

Got you. Perhaps you should post it on a Spanish Forum as it seems to be a language you are least familiar with. 

Anyway, if _zapjevao _corresponds to _zazpíval_ and _pjevao _to _zpíval_, then Czech has one more imperfective form - _zpívával_. It describes a frequently repeated action or a repeated action in a deep past - if it's of any help.


----------



## Diaspora

texpert said:


> Got you. Perhaps you should post it on a Spanish Forum as it seems to be a language you are least familiar with.
> 
> Anyway, if _zapjevao _corresponds to _zazpíval_ and _pjevao _to _zpíval_, then Czech has one more imperfective form - _zpívával_. It describes a frequently repeated action or a repeated action in a deep past - if it's of any help.


 
 The imperfectization of the perfective is also found in BCS, but not for the verb zapjevati. 

The matter is complicated because not many people are familiar with languages in three different groups (Germanic, Slavic, Romance).


----------



## petruchito

Bulgarian have -ava ending for the imperfect(imho), but roots differ from spanish.


----------



## phosphore

Diaspora said:


> Sinoć *zapjevah*/Sinoć sam *zapjevao**
> Anoche yo *canté*/Anoche he cantado
> Last night, I *sang*./Last night, I've sang.


 
I do not think "_anoche_ he cantado" is correct; "_last night_ I have sang" either.

Perfective and imperfective aspect in Slavic languages can be compared with verbs _ver_ and _mirar_, _decir_ and _hablar_ or _see_ and _watch_, _say_ and _talk_, for example.


----------



## Diaspora

phosphore said:


> I do not think "_anoche_ he cantado" is correct; "_last night_ I have sang" either.
> 
> Perfective and imperfective aspect in Slavic languages can be compared with verbs _ver_ and _mirar_, _decir_ and _hablar_ or _see_ and _watch_, _say_ and _talk_, for example.


 
The English examples are by all means correct for certain circumstances, colloquially I hear such phrases in my small town, and I think the Spanish example is correct too but not sure.

Ver (vidjeti), mirar (gledati), I don't see your point, both ver and mirar can have imperfect forms and perfect forms (veia, miraba) while gledati is imperfective and vidjeti is bi-aspectual.


----------



## phosphore

I am certainly not an expert in either Spanish or English, but as much as I know, _the present perfect tense_ is not used to describe an action that happened in some particular time in the past, whilst _pretérito perfecto_ is not used for an ended period of time. I also thought that the past participle form of _to sing_ was _sung_?

Anyhow, you can relate the perfective and imperfective aspects with perfect and imperfect tenses, or _pasti_ and _padati_ with _to fall_ and t_o be falling_, but I think the best way to understand the distinction between the perfective and the imperfective aspect is to look at similar phenomena in languages which you would like to compare them to, and those are pairs of verbs with very similar meaning but unrelated stems, just like _decir_ and _hablar_.


----------



## Diaspora

Sorry, I was typing really fast, it is sung not sang. The Present Perfect can be used if the situation is directly related to a current conversation and if you've sung sometime last night but not at any one moment.

The_ pretérito perfecto_ varies with dialect, it is more restricted in America than in Spain. And of course the Slavic Perfect is a de facto simple past.

I understand Slavic aspects very well but the Spanish sense of the Imperfect is a bit trickier.


----------



## sokol

Diaspora said:


> Perfective
> 
> Sinoć *zapjevah*/Sinoć sam *zapjevao**
> Anoche yo *canté*/Anoche he cantado
> Last night, I *sang*./Last night, I've sung.
> 
> Imperfective
> 
> Kad sam bio pjesnik *pjevao* sam./Kad bjeh pjesnik, ja *pjevah*.*
> Cuando yo era un poeta, yo *cantaba*.
> When I was a singer, I *used to sing*.


In Peninsular Spanish "anoche" *requires *pretérito perfécto, my Spanish teacher from Castilia was very insistant on that. But in American Spanish it might be different - use of tenses differs significantly between both continents.  - Not quite, see below.
Also, in peninsular Spanish to use "cantaba" would be very strange indeed: this requires indefinido.

Of the English example, "I've sang" sounds very strange to me - combined with "last night"; I really can't imagine a context where I would say that. (No objections to all other English examples.) - Sorry, we cross-posted so I didn't read your correction post. 

Anyway, not even English progressive and Spanish imperfect are exact matches - I think there are some contexts where Spanish imperfect is translated as English progressive, but it's certainly not 1:1. - After re-reading my post: no, probably there is no context where progressive is equal to imperfecto - whatever:
My Spanish teacher described the use of tenses in *(Peninsular) Spanish* as follows:
*- pretérito perfécto: *for actions that are finished but which happened in a timespan not yet finished (that is, which are still of consequence to the present, which tie in directly with the present, are still connected with it); for actions which happened _this _day (including "anoche"), _this _week, _this _year etc.
*- indefinido: *for actions that are finished and a timespan that is finished, so things that happened _yesterday_, _last _week, _last _year etc.
*- imperfecto:* for things not finished/for which the meaning "finished" is of no relevance, in a timespan that is finished.
So that means: you typically combine present tense with pretérito perfécto, and you may combine indefinido with imperfecto. (You can also cross-combine of course but that's how they match, in Peninsular Spanish.) This, as said, is different in LA where indefinido may be used instead of pretérito perfécto (but for the reasons of when and why, please don't ask me. )

Probably someone with knowledge of American Spanish usage can add something, and also of course I am a beginner only in Peninsular Spanish, so corrections, naturally, are welcome. 

Now take a look at *English progressive tense:* here, past progressive might indicate that two things happened at the same time, or that an action was repeated, or that an action was interrupted but continued afterwards.
But for simultanuous actions and interrupted actions you would use gerundio in Spanish; as for repeated actions I am not sure what you'd use in Spanish - I would use "soler + infinitive" for habitual actions, and the verb "soler" I would put in indefinido if this happens in the past: I don't think that imperfecto would be good here as this tense is used mostly for descriptions (of landscapes, of persons, etc.) while indefinido is used for "action".

And finally - *Slavic aspect.*
Here *perfective *aspect just means that the action is completed and finished; it doesn't necessarily refer to a certain timespan but as perfective action means "completed" it affects the time-frame reference. In West and East Slavic languages future tense only could be formed from imperfective verbs because a perfective present tense never just means "straight" present tense. South Slavic languages handle this slightly differently, future tense of perfective verbs is possible, but still present tense/perfective isn't "quite" present tense. But we've discussed this in great detail already here (where there are also several links to other threads about related subjects).
*Imperfective *aspect now is the "unmarked" tense because the completion of an action is not defined. And *iterative-imperfective* verbs are, if anything, the only ones which in some contexts can be used similar to English progressive tense (not, however, like imperfecto in Spanish, as far as I know).

So all in all, no, they don't really relate to each other:
- Slavic aspect is a concept which really exists _beside _tenses, even though it affects the temporal point of view.
- English progressive tense is about repeated actions, and simultanuous actions.
- Spanish imperfective/indefinido is a different plane of tense, set apart from present tense and pretérito perfécto.

Further, there's then *Slavic imperfect and aorist.* These two tenses, as used in Bulgarian and Macedonian, relate approximately to Spanish imperfecto (= imperfect) and indefinido (= aorist) - but even those are no exact match, probably (most likely!) also because those two tenses are intertwined with aspect, in Slavic languages.
Imperfect and aorist in BCS however aren't quite used anymore as they once were - but as native speakers repeatedly couldn't agree on the correct use of both tenses I only give this link to an older thread.


----------



## phosphore

I think you are wrong about _pretérito perfecto_: _*anoche*_ goes together with _ayer, anteanoche_ etc., therefore it requires _pret_é_rito indefinido_.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> I think you are wrong about _pretérito perfecto_: _*anoche*_ goes together with _ayer, anteanoche_ etc., therefore it requires _pret_é_rito indefinido_.


Thank you for the correction, and sorry for the confusion: I checked my textbook and notes from my last Spanish course and you are of course right, it is anoche + indefinido.


----------



## Diaspora

I just came up upon an intresting demonstration of the Slavic aspect, (I might have missed some). I think it is almost impossible to compare this to Spanish.

Serbo-Croatian
"to write"-15 infinitives (8 imperfective, 7 prefective,) in theory conjugated into all 7 tenses(4 pasts, 1 present, 2 futures) 

pisati 
zapisati 
prepisati 
potpisati 
napisati 
otpisati 
opisati
izpisati

zapisivati 
prepisivati
potpisivati
napisivati
otpisivati
opisivati
izpisivati


----------



## Athaulf

Diaspora said:


> I just came up upon an intresting demonstration of the Slavic aspect, (I might have missed some). I think it is almost impossible to compare this to Spanish.
> 
> Serbo-Croatian
> "to write"-15 infinitives (8 imperfective, 7 prefective,) in theory conjugated into all 7 tenses(4 pasts, 1 present, 2 futures)
> 
> pisati
> zapisati
> prepisati
> potpisati
> napisati
> otpisati
> opisati
> izpisati i*s*pisati
> 
> zapisivati
> prepisivati
> potpisivati
> napisivati
> otpisivati
> opisivati
> izpisivati i*s*pisivati



Most of these verbs, however, don't mean "to write". For example, _opisati_/_opisivati_ means "to describe", _potpisati_/_potpisivati_ means "to sign", _prepisati_/_prepisivati_ means "to copy [what someone else wrote]", etc. Addition of prepositional prefixes can completely change the meaning of the verb, thus generating a whole family of verbs with different meanings from a single verb root. The closest analogy in English would be phrasal verbs (e.g. "write off", "write up", "write in", etc.).


----------



## Athaulf

Diaspora said:


> I am asking this question to speakers of English, Spanish and Slavic languages.
> 
> Are the imperfective verbs in Slavic languages the same as the imperfect tense in Spanish? (for example, pricao sam-habl*aba*, pjevao sam-cant*aba*).
> 
> Do they correspond to the English progressive tense, -ing instead of -ed. (examples, pjevao-sing*ing*, pricao-talk*ing*)?



Sometimes they do, but very often they don't. It's an incredibly complicated topic, and mastering the verbal aspects is possibly the most difficult thing in learning a Slavic language. See these old threads where these questions are discussed in some detail:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=790785
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=241268


----------



## Diaspora

I tell speakers of English and Spanish that Slavic aspects usually but not always correspond to the progressive -ing, or Imperfect -aba, -ia in Spanish. But they have a hard time understanding that an Imperfective verb can be in the Perfect tense (=Past, Preterito).


----------



## sokol

Diaspora said:


> I tell speakers of English and Spanish that Slavic aspects usually but not always correspond to the progressive -ing, or Imperfect -aba, -ia in Spanish. But they have a hard time understanding that an Imperfective verb can be in the Perfect tense (=Past, Preterito).


I strongly advise _against _suggesting this parallelism. 

Because in my opinion this will cause more confusion than it will help understanding the concept. For all the reasons mentioned above. 

Also, the formation of perfective aspect verbs with prefixes has no parallel in either Spanish or English. German has something which is remotely related to aspect (called _Aktionsart),_ and also involves prefixes, but even there a direct comparison may be more confusing than helpful.

Further, "pisati" has no perfect perfective equivalent - all those verbs with prefixes not only change aspect but also meaning. (Or is there a verb which is a perfective equivalent of "pisati" and which means nothing more but "to write and complete", without meaning "to send" or "to write down" or whatever?).
There are some near-perfect aspectual pairs, but "pisati" is not one of them.


----------



## Outsider

Well, perfectivity in the Romance languages can also change meaning... sort of.


----------



## sokol

Outsider said:


> Well, perfectivity in the Romance languages can also change meaning... sort of.


I have to confess that after only browsing this I now know that I have no idea at all of the use of Spanish tenses ... obviously this is much more complex than textbooks typically say (and much more complex than I ever would have guessed).

_Those _verbs that are most likely used with a _specific _tense (like verbs of emotion and mental activity - with imperfect) then at least to a degree could be compared with imperfective Slavic verbs.
But as there are also verbs which may be used with any tense the analogy, if used to explain the concept to learners, might cause confusion.

A very interesting article as it explains for example that indeed the rule of thumb that English progressive translates as imperfective is useful for learners, but that this rule also is problematic as it only tells half of the truth.

I've only browsed that article linked to in that thread, and it is indeed an excellent reference. (My Spanish however isn't quite good enough to make the most of it, as I never really managed to use Spanish tenses correctly, and consistently.)


----------



## Outsider

sokol said:


> _Those _verbs that are most likely used with a _specific _tense (like verbs of emotion and mental activity - with imperfect) then at least to a degree could be compared with imperfective Slavic verbs.
> But as there are also verbs which may be used with any tense the analogy, if used to explain the concept to learners, might cause confusion.


However, the vast, vast majority of verbs can be used both in _indefinido_ and in _imperfecto_. I guess this makes it definitely different from what happens in Slavic languages.



sokol said:


> A very interesting article as it explains for example that indeed the rule of thumb that English progressive translates as imperfective is useful for learners, but that this rule also is problematic as it only tells half of the truth.


That false equivalence is especially "dangerous" if you're learning languages like Spanish (or Portuguese), which have pervasive progressive periphrases of their own!


----------



## sokol

Outsider said:


> However, the vast, vast majority of verbs can be used both in _indefinido_ and in _imperfecto_. I guess this makes it definitely different from what happens in Slavic languages.


Yes exactly - because in Slavic languages each verb *has *to be either perfective or imperfective (where some of the imperfective verbs are specifically iterative).
That is, structurally, very much different from Spanish tenses. If you use a perfective verb when imperfective meaning is intended this is just wrong in Slavic languages, while most verbs in Spanish can be used both with imperfective and indefinido, and the difference in meaning is created by the different tense (rather than by the verb itself).

Bulgarian and Macedonian show even better how very different the distinction pefective/imperfective is from imperfect/aorist (as they're called there, with aorist being a near-equivalent of indefinido).
Their system of tenses and aspect is immensely complex and way beyond my understanding. See for example the thread on non-witness mood, or aorist ... not. If both principles were the same they should "neutralise" each other - but something entirely different happens here: the many possibilities of combining aspect with imperfect/aorist creates specialised uses and meanings.
But as said - I am not really competent to elaborate on that; I only know approximately (and understand approximately ) what happens in BG and MK, and there I do my _kotau _and leave in awe.


----------



## Diaspora

sokol said:


> I strongly advise _against _suggesting this parallelism.
> 
> (Or is there a verb which is a perfective equivalent of "pisati" and which means nothing more but "to write and complete", without meaning "to send" or "to write down" or whatever?).


 
I should avoid such parallelism. I wonder can "morir"-to die be used in Imperfect such as, Ellos siempre morian.

napisati means "to write and complete". As far as I know there is no such concept in English and Spanish verbs. Some infinitives are in fact "bi-aspectual", meaning they are both perfective and imperfective in the same form, such as "biti"-to be and "vidjeti"=to see. (it gets more confusing because imperfective verbs can be divided into repetitive (each can be repetetive completed, repetetive start, repetetive ending) vs. progressive, while perfective verbs into momentary start vs. momentary completed vs. momentary ending). It would take too long to post all of this. In many cases meaning changes with aspects.


----------



## Nanon

sokol said:


> [My Spanish teacher described the use of tenses in *(Peninsular) Spanish* as follows:
> *- pretérito perfécto: *for actions that are finished but which happened in a timespan not yet finished (that is, which are still of consequence to the present, which tie in directly with the present, are still connected with it); for actions which happened _this _day (including "anoche"), _this _week, _this _year etc.
> *- indefinido: *for actions that are finished and a timespan that is finished, so things that happened _yesterday_, _last _week, _last _year etc.
> *- imperfecto:* for things not finished/for which the meaning "finished" is of no relevance, in a timespan that is finished.
> So that means: you typically combine present tense with pretérito perfécto, and you may combine indefinido with imperfecto. (You can also cross-combine of course but that's how they match, in Peninsular Spanish.) This, as said, is different in LA where indefinido may be used instead of pretérito perfécto (but for the reasons of when and why, please don't ask me. )
> - Spanish imperfective/indefinido is a different plane of tense, set apart from present tense and pretérito perfécto.
> Probably someone with knowledge of American Spanish usage can add something, and also of course I am a beginner only in Peninsular Spanish, so corrections, naturally, are welcome.


 
Sokol, we can roughly (not to expand into a discussion only on Spanish) say that American Spanish is not really different except for some overlaps between "presente perfecto" and "pretérito perfecto". American Spanish tends to use the simple tense (canté) more than the compound one (he cantado). You may wish to have a look at this thread (antepresente = presente perfecto, i.e. the compound tense "he cantado" - several terminologies may coexist according to the country). This is a recurrent topic in Spanish forums...
Otherwise, perfect and imperfect are used like in Peninsular Spanish.


----------



## Nanon

Diaspora said:


> I wonder can "morir"-to die be used in Imperfect such as, Ellos siempre morian.


 
Sure, for instance with an iterative value:



> Con el tiempo algunas personas empezaron a preguntarse por qué sus pastos *siempre morían*, por qué sus gargantas y ojos les ardían...
> (source)
> 
> Pero la aportación más relevante de Sulston, y la más destacada por el comité Nobel, fue el descubrimiento de que células muy concretas del linaje celular estudiado, 131 como hemos dicho antes, *siempre morían* por un proceso de apoptosis (muerte celular programada).
> (source)


 
But you may also say "me moría de hambre", whereas after all, although you were dying, you never died...


----------



## texpert

sokol said:


> Further, "pisati" has no perfect perfective equivalent - all those verbs with prefixes not only change aspect but also meaning. (Or is there a verb which is a perfective equivalent of "pisati" and which means nothing more but "to write and complete", without meaning "to send" or "to write down" or whatever?).
> There are some near-perfect aspectual pairs, but "pisati" is not one of them.


 
There are many in Czech, including _*psát*_ in fact. _*Napsat *_does not carry any additional meaning whatsoever. 
Note, I'm not disputing any of your conclusions, this has just caught my eye.


----------



## sokol

Yes, texpert, "napisati" indeed has, as confirmed by Diaspora, no "additional" meaning and is thus forming an aspect pair with "pisati". I didn't realise that when I wrote my post. 
(Also thanks to Nanon for clarifying the use of Spanish tenses. )


----------

