# all Slavic: habitual verbs and aspect



## Gavril

In English, if you are trying to make a habitual statement, you use the simple past or present tense (depending on whether the statement applies to the present or the past): 

_I *run* a mile every day._
_He *worked* on a fishing boat._

In the different Slavic languages, does the habitualness of a statement have any effect on the aspect of the verb? E.g., in the translations of the above sentences, would the verbs be more likely to be perfective or imperfective? 

Or, can a "habit" have either aspect depending on the intended semantics of the sentence?

Thanks for any info


----------



## rur1920

Russian: in the present tense, only imperfective verbs are used by definition, as perfective verbs have no present tense. In the past tense, the answer depends on what you mean by habituality. Trying to do your work for you ( ;-) ), I state that habitual activity is one that had no end to keep in mind and no beginning to keep in mind. Then the answer is "only imperfective": you can say that a perective action was done many times, but it is clear that you are talking about and keeping in mind only a limited number of times.


----------



## iezik

Habitual activity can emphasize that something is finished (then use perfective) or not (then use imperfective). This probably holds for all Slavic languages where the pair of imperfective and perfective verbs are available with the same meaning. A verb can be outside all such pairs if the former counterpart verb changed meaning or due to syntax when some environment requires specific aspect as in Russian for the present tense.

In Slovene: The presented two verbs (run, work) have  only imperfective translations. The corresponding perfective variants  (run:teči-> tekati) and (work: delati-> delovati) have slightly  different meanings. In this case, the imperfective verb would be  typically used.

As verb pair (perfective, imperfective), let's start with _They grow wheat._ It's translated as _Pridelujejo pšenico._ (imperfective), or in the past _Pridelovali so pšenico (They grew wheat)._  In the verb pair (pridelati, pridelovati), both verbs have the same  meaning and different aspect. Then it's possible to use perfective verb _pridelati: __Vsako leto pridelajo deset ton._ (_They produce ten tons every year_), _Lani so pridelali osem ton._ (_The last year, they produced eight tons_), _Vsako leto so pridelali vsaj sedem ton._ (_They produced at least seven tons every year_).

In  English, adding a repetitive time specification (every day) is  compatible with the simple tenses. In Slavic languages, either aspect can be used.

She produced three toys every day. Vsak dan je izdelala tri igrače. (perfective)
She produced toys every day. Vsak dan je izdelovala igrače. (imperfective)

I believe that such distinction (using past tense, where no limitation as in Russian above) is about the same in most Slavic languages.

BCS: Svaki dan je izradila tri igračke. Svaki dan je izrađivala igračke.


----------



## Gavril

Hi Iezik,



iezik said:


> In Slovene: The presented two verbs (run, work) have  only imperfective translations. The corresponding perfective variants  (run:teči-> tekati) and (work: delati-> delovati) have slightly  different meanings. In this case, the imperfective verb would be  typically used.



The first sentence (_I run *a mile* every day_) describes a definite amount of running, just as your sentences about toys (_je izdelala *tri* igrače_) and wheat-growing (_pridelali *deset* ton_) have definite quantities as their objects. Why would "I run a mile every" day be considered imperfective, while the other two sentences are perfective?


----------



## iezik

Gavril said:


> The first sentence (_I run *a mile* every day_) describes a definite amount of running, just as your sentences about toys (_je izdelala *tri* igrače_) and wheat-growing (_pridelali *deset* ton_)  have definite quantities as their objects. Why would "I run a mile  every" day be considered imperfective, while the other two sentences are  perfective?



English verb doesn't have aspect (in this Slavic meaning), but the  verb in translation has the aspect. I was not clear and precise enough. So, the continuation is here.

I translated the running sentence as _Vsak dan tečem eno miljo._ The verb _teči  _is imperfective, usually. I forgot the other possibility. SSKJ lists an example where the verb is used as perfective. So, also here the verb is perfective, although PONS lists only the usual aspect.

With different translations, _Vsak dan pretečem eno miljo. or_ _Vsak dan odtečem eno miljo._, the used verbs are perfective. So, I think you're right, also such sentence is perfective.

And, I incorrectly stated the aspect of verbs. All mentioned verbs below  (teči, tekati, delati, delovati) are (usually or always) imperfective in Slovenian.


iezik said:


> The corresponding perfective variants  (run:teči-> tekati) and (work: delati-> delovati)


----------



## iezik

iezik said:


> She produced three toys every day. Vsak dan je izdelala tri igrače. (perfective)
> She produced toys every day. Vsak dan je izdelovala igrače. (imperfective)



I noticed a variant in rur's deleted message. In line with the previous examples, here is Slovenian variant:

Vsak dan je izdelovala tri igrače. She was producing three toys every day.

I'm not sure whether my English translation is good enough. The Slovenian sentence says that three toys were in the production and nothing is said about completion of the work on any of them. Maybe she was just training or her work was just part of longer tasks.


----------



## Gavril

iezik said:


> I translated the running sentence as _Vsak dan tečem eno miljo._ The verb _teči  _is imperfective, usually. I forgot the other possibility. SSKJ lists an example where the verb is used as perfective. So, also here the verb is perfective, although PONS lists only the usual aspect.
> 
> With different translations, _Vsak dan pretečem eno miljo. or_ _Vsak dan odtečem eno miljo._, the used verbs are perfective. So, I think you're right, also such sentence is perfective.



What is the semantic or contextual difference between _Vsak dan tečem eno miljo_ and _Vsak dan pretečem_ _eno miljo_? Is one much more common than the other in speech?

Thanks again


----------



## rur1920

iezik said:


> English verb doesn't have aspect (in this Slavic meaning), …


What you said and the example you gave with toys makes me think there is no common Slavic meaning…


iezik said:


> Vsak dan je izdelovala tri igrače. She was producing three toys every day.
> 
> I'm not sure whether my English translation is good enough. The Slovenian sentence says that three toys were in the production and nothing is said about completion of the work on any of them. Maybe she was just training or her work was just part of longer tasks.


Interesting. In Russian, a similar (imperfective) sentence with the basic root "делать" would normally mean she completed her action every day. I bring back the example: он проделывал четыре фокуса за день, he made four tricks a day. By the way, "он делал четыре фокуса за день" (imperfective, no prefix and no suffix) would mean exactly the same, though of course without any mention of scattering anything, either "points of action" or "processes of action" or whatever…


----------



## iezik

Gavril said:


> What is the semantic or contextual difference between _Vsak dan tečem eno miljo_ and _Vsak dan pretečem_ _eno miljo_? Is one much more common than the other in speech?



To express the distance that was run, _preteči  _is much more used. Verb _teči_ is mostly used as imperfective, like _Tečem že sedem let._ or _Najraje tečem zvečer po gozdu_.


----------



## Sobakus

I believe that BCS and Slovenian overall have less restrictions on the usage of Perfective verbs than other Slavic languages. In Russian, there's only two cases I can think of where the Perfective can be used in a habitual sense:

1) After negated temporal adverbs or adverbials: _Не к*а*ждый день так*о*е ув*и*дишь!_ (You won't see this every day!)
2) In expressive historical present: _К*а*ждое *у*тро прид*ё*т в одн*о*м и том же кост*ю*ме и с*я*дет за од*и*н и тот же ст*о*лик._  (Every morning (s)he would come wearing the same costume and sit at the same table.)

In other cases, if you specifically want to express completion in a habitual action, you need to pick a secondary imperfective, typically formed with the suffix _ыва/ива_, sometimes with Umlaut (проделать->проделывать, изготовить->изготавливать). This is not universal, though, and sometimes you'll have to settle for the simple unprefixed imperfective.


Gavril said:


> Hi Iezik,The first sentence (_I run *a mile* every day_) describes a definite amount of running, just as your sentences about toys (_je izdelala *tri* igrače_) and wheat-growing (_pridelali *deset* ton_) have definite quantities as their objects. Why would "I run a mile every" day be considered imperfective, while the other two sentences are perfective?


A definite amount of doing something doesn't demand the usage of the Perfective. The aspectual distinction is rather about treating an event as a single point in time versus an ongoing process. As is the case above, a prefix can express the definite meaning with the verb itself remaining imperfective. It's the same with running:

_Он*а* пробег*а*ла три килом*е*тра в день._


----------



## rur1920

Right, and I don't even see any major difference between these two cases. Both picture, in the future tense, examples of how the action is done, and both imply that that is what is happening already so is expected to happen all the time, again and again (expectations, of course, need to be expressed with the future tense). "Я каждый день тебе это сказал" is, of course, impossible. ;-)


----------



## Sobakus

rur1920 said:


> Right, and I don't even see any major difference between these two cases. Both picture, in the future tense, examples of how the action is done, and both imply that that is what is happening already so is expected to happen all the time, again and again (expectations, of course, need to be expressed with the future tense). "Я каждый день тебе это сказал" is, of course, impossible. ;-)



I don't see any expectation in the second case. In fact, being _historical_ present, it isn't typically used with ongoing or future events, at least in my experience.


----------



## rur1920

Sobakus said:


> I don't see any expectation in the second case.


Why, the expectation that I have to imagine and that the narrator used to have or often has now. That is why the statement is expressive: and makes me imagine the situation "from inside" of the narrator. I did not say anything about future events, but on the other hand the expression indeed may describe not only expectations one had in the past or often has now, but also those that will be had in the future.


----------



## Gavril

Hi Iezik,



iezik said:


> Verb _teči_ is mostly used as imperfective, like _Tečem že sedem let._ or _Najraje tečem zvečer po gozdu_.



Sobakus' post has made me wonder about cases where imperfectiveness is indicated with a suffix (-_ovati_, etc.).

For example, which of the highlighted verbs would you normally use in this example:_

Ob petkih, tajnica __razmnožuje__/__razmnoži __vsa tedenska poročila__._

"On Fridays, the secretary *copies* all the weekly reports." 

(Sorry if the sentence is bad Slovenian, but I hope that at least the verb is correct.)


----------



## ahvalj

Only the Imperfective: Russian allows Perfective verbs for repeated actions only in occasional, very rare constructions, most of which occur in the old literature, something like (my own invention): _Что ни вечер, он придёт туда, зажжёт свечу, сядет и задумается_ (as in #10). The problem is that the Slavic aspects are used to express quite numerous binary oppositions, which often overlap. An ideal solution of this particular case would have been to develop special iterative verbs, like in Czech and Slovak, and to make their system independent of the Perfective/Imperfective. A task for the coming centuries ,-)


----------



## rur1920

ahvalj said:


> most of which occur in the old literature, something like (my own invention): _Что ни вечер, он придёт туда, зажжёт свечу, сядет и задумается_ (as in #10).


«Да что ж такое: придёт, сядет, и сидит! А ну давай, уходи скорей отсюда!» Does not look like old literature to me, once we remove the candles. 


rur1920 said:


> That is why the statement is expressive: and makes me


"It", of course. A typo.


----------



## ahvalj

An example of a language, where this problem has been partially solved, is Lithuanian. This language possesses a Perfective/Imperfective opposition (though not as formalized as in Slavic) and has a special Frequentative Past tense. So, for the verb "to rewrite" we find a pair _perrašyti_ (Perf.) / _perrašinėti_ (Imperf.) with a Simple Past _perrašė/perrašinėjo_ ("rewrote" / "was rewriting") opposed to the Frequentative Past _perrašydavo/perrašinėdavo _("rewrote several times" / "was rewriting several times"). Of all of them, Russian will use the Perfective Past for the first example (_переписал_) and the same Imperfective Past for three others (_переписывал_). Unfortunately for Lithuanian, it is just one tense, not an opposition of two verbal pairs, so this won't work outside the Past tense (and its participle and adverbial participles): even the Infinitive is unable to express this distinction.


----------



## Spikaly

Czech_

I *run* a mile every day._ - Každý den běhám/běžím jednu míli.
_He *worked* on a fishing boat._ - Pracoval na rybářské lodi.


----------



## oveka

Ukrainian:
Щодня я *про**бігаю *два кілометри.
*Два кілометри* я пробігаю щодня.
Кожен день я бігаю на *дистанцію *у два кілометри.
Він *працював*на риболовецькому судні. ==in the last
Він *працює*на риболовецькому судні. ==at all, currently
_
Can be useful for?_


----------

