# All Slavic languages: Verb irregularity



## dihydrogen monoxide

Are verbs
a) to be
b) to go
irregular in your language?


----------



## mietagosia

Hmmm...That's a hard one for me because as a native speaker of Polish, I don't really have a sense of what's regular and what's not. I can give you the cojugations and you draw your own conclusions:

być - to be

Ja jestem - I am
Ty jesteś - You are
On/ona/ono jest - He/she/it is
My jesteśmy - We are
Wy jesteście - You are
Oni/one są - They are (oni is masculine, one is used for a group consisting only of women)

iść - to go (meaning, walk on foot)

Ja idę - I go
Ty idziesz - You go
On/ona/ono idzie - He/she/it goes
My idziemy - We go
Wy idziecie - You go
Oni/one idą - They go

jechać - to go (by car, by train, etc)

Ja jadę
Ty jedziesz
On/ona/ono jedzie
My jedziemy
Wy jedziecie
Oni/one jadą

The verb "to go" looks quite normal and regular to me. However, in the conjugation of "być" the infinitive form and the personal forms look totally different, they don't have the same stem. Hope that helps


----------



## jazyk

They are irregular in Czech:

to be: být
jsem, jsi, je, jsme, jste, jsou

to go on foot: jít
jdu, jdeš, jde, jdeme, jdete, jdou

to go (in a vehicle)/ride/drive: jet
jedu, jedeš, jede, jedeme, jedete, jedou

The conjugations of jít and jet are not so irregular if you look at them, if you compare them to the infinitive, they look somewhat different. Maybe some time ago the infinitive was more regular and was something like jdet and jedet, but it's just my speculation. The funny thing is that Russian jít, идти, has an unpronounced d in it, which comes up again (and is fully pronounced) in its conjugation.


----------



## winpoj

As regards the verb "to go" (on foot), let me add my somewhat unscientific take on it:

First, I think the default translation for "to go"  is "chodit" rather than "jít". The latter in fact means "to be going".

I go there every week. Chodím tam každý týden.

I'm going to the pub. Jdu do hospody.

An interesting feature of "jít" is that its perfective aspect seems to lack infinitive:

Půjdu tam. I'll go there.  But there is no infinitive such as "půjít".

But the biggest irregularity in my opinion is that "jít" has a completely different root in the past tense then in the present tense: "šel jsem..."


----------



## jazyk

> First, I think the default translation for "to go"  is "chodit" rather than "jít". The latter in fact means "to be going".


I know, but I chose it and not chodit to match Polish iść, to which it is equivalent in etymology and usage.


----------



## robin74

mietagosia said:


> The verb "to go" looks quite normal and regular to me.


I'd say all three are strongly irregular.


----------



## jazyk

Maybe this old thread will pique dihydrogen monoxide's interest.


----------



## Outsider

The verb "to be" in various Slavic languages, with information about its etymology.


----------



## trance0

Slovene:

biti: sem, si, je, sva, sta, sta, smo, ste, so
iti: grem, greš, gre, greva, gresta, gresta, gremo, greste, grejo/gredo

Both are obviously irregular.


----------



## Athaulf

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Are verbs
> a) to be
> b) to go
> irregular in your language?



I would gladly bet $50 that the verb _to be_ is extremely irregular in absolutely every Indo-European language. It is certainly irregular in all Slavic ones, as you can see on Outsider's link. 

As for the verb _to go_, most Slavic languages don't have a direct translation for this verb. Slavic verbs of motion are extremely complicated and English _to go_ can translate into many different verbs depending on the context. In South Slavic languages, the system of these verbs has been somewhat simplified, but just take a look at the complexities of the Russian verbs of motion.

Generally speaking, the verbs of motion tend to be quite irregular. In particular, the ones coming from the Proto-Slavic _*jьti _(Croatian _ići_, Russian _идти_, Polish _iść_, and the others already mentioned in this thread) tend to be very irregular and suppletive.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Athaulf said:


> In South Slavic languages, the system of these verbs has been somewhat simplified


 
Not Slovene, however, which even preserves the *supine* (which indicates "an intention to perform an action" and has been lost in other Slavic languages).


----------



## Boniej

In Lower Sorbian the verb "to be/byś " goes like this:

ja som
ty sy
wón/wóna/wóno je

mej smej
wej stej
wónej stej

my smy
wy sćo
wóni su

The verb "to go/hyś " looks like this:

ja du, źom 
ty źoš
wón/wóna/wóno źo 

mej źomej 
wej źotej 
wónej źotej 

my źomy 
wy źośo 
wóni du 

As you see they're quite irregular, too.


----------



## Boniej

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Not Slovene, however, which even preserves the *supine* (which indicates "an intention to perform an action" and has been lost in other Slavic languages).


 
In Sorbian the supine survived as well. Here some examples:

 spaś (to sleep) ->> źi spat (Go to sleep!)
 nakupowaś  (to shop) ->> wóni du nakupowat (They're going shopping.)


----------



## Kanes

Bulgarian to be:

*az sum* - I am
*ti si* - you are
*toi e* - he is
*tia e* - she is
*to e - *it is
*nie sme* - we are
*vie ste* - you are
*te sa* - they are

Bulgarian to go:

*da ida* - to go(I)
*da idesh* - to go(you)
*da ide* - to go(he/she/it)
*da idem* - to go(we)
*da idete* - to go (you)
*da idat* - to go(they)


----------



## echo chamber

In *Macedonian*, _to be_ is irregular: (I agree with Athaulf regarding his last post) 

_Да се биде /Da se bide/:_

(Јас) сум               /(Jas) sum/                 (I) am
(Ти) си                  /(Ti) si/                      (You) are
(Тој/Таа?тоа) е      /(Toj/Taa/Toa) e/         (He/She/It) is
(Ние) сме              /(Nie) sme /                 (We) are      
(Вие) сте              /(Vie) ste/                    (You) are
(Тие) се               /(Tie) se/                     (They) are

While _to go_ is a regular one:

_Оди /Odi/:

_(Јас) одам              /(Jas) odam/                (I) go
(Ти) одиш              /(Ti) odish/                   (You) go
(Тој/Таа/Тоа) оди   /(Toj/Taa/Toa) odi         (He/She/It) goes
(Ние) одиме           /(Nie) odime/                 (We) go
(Вие) одите           /(Vie) odite/                   (You) go
(Тие) одат            /(Tie) odat/                    (They) go

The personal pronouns can or may not be used, since the existence of separate forms for each person. =)


----------



## Darina

trance0 said:


> Slovene:
> 
> biti: sem, si, je, sva, sta, sta, smo, ste, so
> iti: grem, greš, gre, greva, gresta, gresta, gremo, greste, grejo/gredo
> 
> Both are obviously irregular.


 
I actually find it confusing how you conjugate the verb to be. In Bulgarian these are two different werbs:

съм: съм, си, е, сме, сте, са
да бъда: бъда, бъдеш, бъде, бъдем, бъдете, бъдат 

I think this is the case in Sebrian , too. Am I right?

Edit:
I forgot the verb бивам - slightly archaic but almost same meaning.


In Bulgarian, there are three conjugation forms and all the vеrbs obey the rules, except for съм. 

And we have many words for "to go".


----------



## trance0

Well, in Slovenian there also exists a conjugation of "biti" with the "bode-" root: bodem, bodeš, bode, bodeva, bodeta, bodeta, bodemo, bodete, bodejo; but this is just a longer form ob the "bo-" root, which is only used for FUTURE tense! There is only one "to be" verb in Slovenian.


----------



## Darina

trance0 said:


> Well, in Slovenian there also exists a conjugation of "biti" with the "bode-" root: bodem, bodeš, bode, bodeva, bodeta, bodeta, bodemo, bodete, bodejo; but this is just a longer form ob the "bo-" root, which is only used for FUTURE tense! There is only one "to be" verb in Slovenian.


 
Interesting! 
In Bulgarian we use both for future with the same meaning: ще съм, ще бъда - I will be, although the second form is the correct one. 

What about the expression "to be or not to be"?
And which one do you use as an auxiliary verb to form past tenses?


----------



## trance0

Infinitive of "to be" in Slovene is "biti". You drop the "-ti" ending and you get the stem, then you add: -l/la/lo/li,...  --> bil/bila/bilo,... and you get a participle(opisni deležnik) which is used for past tense, pluperfect, conditional of the verb to be,...

In Slovene only "to be" is used to form past tenses(of which there are only two). The future si formed using the future of the auxiliary "to be" (bom, boš,...) and the participle on -l. There is no other way to form the future tense in Slovene. Slovene does not form the future tense with "hoteti", "to want" as Croatian for example.

Conditional is formed using "bi"(the remnant of the old aorist, which no longer exists in Slovene) which is the same for all persons and the main verb is again in its participle(-l) form.


----------



## trance0

To be or not to be in Slovene: biti ali ne biti.


----------



## Kolan

trance0 said:


> To be or not to be in Slovene: biti ali ne biti.


Russian: быть или не быть.


----------



## Kolan

Athaulf said:


> just take a look at the complexities of the Russian verbs of motion.


Thanks, Athaulf! But this resource is so confusing for a native speaker  After two pages of reading I completely loss the clue of how it works. I know it's not an easy matter, but it's just made more difficult than that actually is. Some examples are just ridiculous.


----------



## Athaulf

Kolan said:


> Thanks, Athaulf! But this resource is so confusing for a native speaker  After two pages of reading I completely loss the clue of how it works. I know it's not an easy matter, but it's just made more difficult than that actually is. Some examples are just ridiculous.



I've had the project of studying the Russian verbs of motion in-depth on my to-do list for a while, but I just can never find the time.  For a Croatian speaker, the system is extremely confusing, since most of these distinctions have been lost in modern Croatian. The difference in the use of _идти_/_ходить_, _ехать_/_ездить_, and other similar pairs seems to me as complicated as the perfective/imperfective aspect, except that it has no precedent in my native language, so it's almost as confusing for me as for non-Slavic learners. Thus, as a native speaker, you might be underestimating its complexity. 

As for the above linked page, do you think that the listed examples are incorrect? It would be good to know, since I've already used these pages for reference, so I guess I should stop doing that if the author is sloppy.


----------



## Kolan

Athaulf said:


> As for the above linked page, do you think that the listed examples are incorrect?


There is a few grammatical issues, spelling as well, and the nature of certain examples makes them unfit for teaching (although they may be grammatically correct at the same time). 

Besides that, to my point of view, the whole concept is so unusual, that if I was starting now to learn again the Russian verbs of motion, I'd be stuck at the third page. I believe there is a better approach somewhere else.


----------



## Istriano

_ići (id+ti_/ to go) looks regular  ---------> _idem, ideš, ide,_ but it's classified as irregular
_peći (pek+ti_/to bake) looks similar------> _pečem, pečeš, peče _but it's classified as regular.


----------



## Anicetus

Uh, what exactly are you trying to say? 

They don't look so similar to me. There are several other verbs with the *kt > ć change in the infinitive: _reći, tući, teći, sjeći_... _Ići_, however, is the only one I can think of with the supposed *dt > ć mutation; *dt may change to st, like in _povesti, krasti, presti_... Not to mention the completely unexpected l-participle _išao_ and past adverbial participle _išavši_.


----------



## LilianaB

The problem that some people encountered in this thread is that there is a confusion in terms here and the regularity of verbs is not defined. What do you mean by irregular verbs in Slavic languages? There are some irregular verbs in Slavic languages, like _to be _for example, in Polish and Russian, at least, which could follow a regular conjugation, otherwise. In Baltic languages the situation with the verb _to be_ is similar: it is an irregular verb but it follows a regular conjugation. I think the same might be true in Polish and Russian, although no native speaker who is not a Slavist would know that, because they don't teach it in High School to native speakers. This is a different level of grammar that has more to do with historical grammar.


----------



## Istriano

It's all very relative.
For example *sing, sang, sung *is an irregular verb in English (since you have to memorize three different verb forms),
but *dēfendō*, *dēfendere*,  *dēfendī*, *dēfensum* is regular in Latin (even though you have four different forms to memorize).
For native speakers of Croatian, _peći _is regular, but for us, who learned is as a foreign language, it is not very regular: why is _sing sang sung _irregular, but _peći, pečem, pekao _regular?
How can both perfectly regular verbs like _imati, imam, imao_ (to have)  and verbs like _peći, pečem, pekao _(to bake) be considered regular_?_
In some languages the stem changing (or palatalizing or verbs with other changes) verbs are ''regular'', but in English, they are classified as irregular.
For language comparison and for L2 learning purposes, there should be some common criteria: what is an irregular verb, and what it is not?
For pedagogic L2 learning purpose, any verb which is not easily conjugated in a correct way by foreign learners, should be considered as _de facto _irregular.
When I learned Croatian, I considered _imati _a regular verb (=all forms predictable from the infinitive), and _peći _an irregular _verb._

Compare the present of verbs in Croatian and Macedonian. For L2 learning purposes, many ''regular'' verbs in Croatian are more difficult to conjugate than some ''irregular'' verbs in Macedonian.


----------



## LilianaB

This is exactly what I mean. People are trying to apply rules from Germanic languages to other languages, which  I don't think makes that much sense. There are too many exceptions and conjugation patterns in Slavic languages that the concept of regular and irregular verbs becomes vague.


----------



## ilocas2

I remember that in the elementary school there was taught that in Czech there are 4 irregular verbs - být (to be), vědět (to know), jíst (to eat), chtít (to want)


----------



## Azori

One Slovak grammar book mentions the following verbs (as irregular verbs in Slovak):

*byť* (to be), *jesť* (to eat), *vedieť* (to know), *chcieť* (to want), *ísť* (to go), *stáť* (to stand), *báť sa* (to be afraid)


----------



## klemen

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Are verbs
> a) to be
> b) to go
> irregular in your language?


They are both irregular in Slovene. 

Regular verbs are in forms: 
Infinitive: root + ti (or root + či)

                singular       dual            plural
1. person: root + m    root + va     root + mo
2. person: root + š     root + ta      root + te
3. person: root + /     root + ta      root + jo

Example: verb "delati" - to work:

                singular       dual            plural
1. person: delam          delava         delamo
2. person: delaš           delata          delate
3. person: dela            delata          delajo


verbs "to be" - biti and "to go" - iti are irregular:

biti (to be):

                singular       dual            plural
1. person: sem            sva             smo
2. person: si                sta              ste
3. person: je               sta              so

iti (to go):

                singular       dual            plural
1. person: grem           greva          gremo
2. person: greš            gresta         greste
3. person: gre              gresta          gredo


----------



## swintok

In Ukrainian, the infinitive of the verb "to be" is бути.  In modern Ukrainian it is irregular since the conjugation in the present tense is invariable for all persons:

Я є
Ти є
Він, вона, воно є
Ми є
Ви є
Вони є

An older conjugation of the verb is preserved in church usage, in older literature, and in some Western Ukrainian dialects.  The average educated person would understand what this is but would never likely use it either in written or oral language.

Я єсьм
Ти єси
Він, вона, воно єсть
Ми єсьмо (або ємо)
Ви єсте
Вони суть

Whether this is an irregular conjugation is up for debate, since there are three other verbs (and their derivatives) that still exist in modern Ukrainian with the same conjugation pattern:  дати (to give), їсти (to eat), відповісти (to answer).  

Я дам (їм, відповім)
Ти даси (їси, відповіси)
Він, вона,воно дасть (їсть, відповість)
Ми дамо (їмо, відповімо)
Ви дасте (їсте, відповісте)
Вони дадуть (їдять, відповідять)

The third person plural form відповідять for some reason is not used in Ukraine, where they use rather дають відповідь.  It is used in the Ukrainian dialects outside Ukraine, however.

Of these verbs, дати (to give) and відповісти (to answer) are the perfective and so only have a past or future tense meaning.  Їсти (to eat) is imperfective. 

These verbs were previously not considered to be irregular.  It used to be taught that there were five different conjugation patterns of Ukrainian verbs, with these verbs being in the 5th category.  Now, however, in Ukraine especially, the clasification system has been reduced to two categories and so the above verbs are considered irregular.  Outside Ukraine, the old classification system is still often used.


----------



## Mishe

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Not Slovene, however, which even preserves the *supine* (which indicates "an intention to perform an action" and has been lost in other Slavic languages).



Speakers are largely losing the intuition to use supine in Slovenian, although it is still part of the normative standard. I think this is because the final -i is dropped in the infinitive in the spoken language (so "delati" becomes "delat", "jesti" becomes "jest", etc.), merging the infinitive and supine forms to become identical (supine is the same as the infinitive, just without the final "i" and used after the verbs of movement). So most people write infinitive in places where the supine should be, for instance "grem delati" instead of "grem delat". I don't know how many times I've corrected such mistakes in written texts and always received a "puzzled" reaction, when I explained that there is something called "namenilnik (supine)" in Slovenian.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

*All Slavic languages: Verb irregularity*

According to the description of such languages as French, English, German, etc, there are regular verbs and there are also irregular verbs which are to be memorized.

In the description of Slavic languages, however, this terminology - verb regularity/irregularity - is not used.

If we were forced to use it, then:


In Russian: all verbs (both E-stem and I-stem verbs) would be irregular.
In Bulgarian: all E-stem and I-stem verbs would be irregular. A-stem verbs are regular.


----------

