# входил/вошёл



## Bruno Veloni

I've studied verbs of motion and I think, in general, I understand it, some nuances etc, but sometimes it seems not to fit.
Yesterday I was watching Leviathan. In one scene Kolya, Dima and Lilya were talking in the kitchen, Kolya thought Roma was eavesdropping and says something to him, but he answered that he wasn't eavesdropping and "Я в туалет входил".
I don't understand why входить. He was still in the bathroom. Why not "вошёл"?


----------



## Maroseika

You just misheard, probably he said: "Я в туалет ходил".


----------



## Sobakus

Theoretically, if we disregard the lack of logic, between _входил_ and _вошёл_ the correct form would be _входил_ because the action has to be in the same aspect as what he's denying to have been doing, that is, _подслушивать._ The latter is Imperfective since you're talking about ongoing concurrent actions. But, of course, using _входить в туалет_ as a durative verb makes no sense since it's typically an instantaneous change of location. In other cases though, there can be duration to it:

"Я уже входил в подъезд, когда понял, что забыл купить сыр." (_заходил_ sounds better with duration though)

The correct verb is _ходить_ since it has the express meaning of "to visit, go somewhere" as an extension of its literal sense. All Imperfective Pluridirectional verbs of motion have this meaning and are used depending on the means of travel.


----------



## Bruno Veloni

Problably))
But even in this situation, why "ходил"? Why the multidirectional verb?
It was not a "round-trip" in the past, nor a random motion...


----------



## Maroseika

Imperfect can work here to explain his unexpected appearance near the bathroom. Can you describe the background in more details?


----------



## Bruno Veloni

When I sent my last message Sobakus' comment was not appearing yet.


----------



## Bruno Veloni

I'll try to summarize it.

They were talking about going to Moscow, Kolya was worried because Roma was not a good student. Suddenly Roma says from the bathroom that he was not that bad. Kolya then asked him if he was eavesdropping and Roma said he wasn't, he just went to the bathroom.

I didn't know this: " the action has to be in the same aspect as what he's denying to have been doing".

Even if what he said was "I was going to bathroom", wouldn't be correct to say "Я шёл в туалет" since he had a goal, an destination?

Sorry for these many questions.


----------



## Sobakus

Bruno Veloni said:


> Even if what he said was "I was going to bathroom", wouldn't be correct to say "Я шёл в туалет" since he had a goal, an destination?


But you've just mentioned that he said it from the bathroom, therefore he wasn't _walking_ to the toilet at the moment (which _шёл_ would refer to) – he had already done so, had entered it and had even used it. The whole process of "going to bathroom" together with washing your hands is referred to as "ходить в туалет". It does _not _refer to the actual motion of walking.


----------



## Bruno Veloni

Thank you all!
Sometimes it is kinda difficult, because when I think about non-prefixed multidirectional verbs in the past I connect it with a single "round-trip" or a random motion.


----------



## Rosett

Ходил в туалет is an idiomatic expression meaning that someone just used a toilet facility for private needs, and is even perfective in the given sense. It doesn't really mean or imply a round trip or any directional move or motion.


----------



## Sobakus

Rosett said:


> Ходил в туалет [...] is even perfective in the given sense.


I'm afraid this is obviously not true; there are few native Russian biaspectual verbs, and none of them are verbs of motion. Cases like _сходить_ are actually two different homonymous verbs.


----------



## Rosett

Sobakus said:


> I'm afraid this is obviously not true; there are few native Russian biaspectual verbs, and none of them are verbs of motion. Cases like _сходить_ are actually two different homonymous verbs.


The point is that ходить/сходить в туалет is idiomatic.


----------



## Sobakus

Rosett said:


> The point is that ходить/сходить в туалет is idiomatic.


That's not what I'm discussing in my post though, is it?


----------



## Rosett

Sobakus said:


> That's not what I'm discussing in my post though, is it?


In the OP, the point is about what happened in the movie. The meaning of "в туалет ходил" is that Roma was busy in toilet with his private needs.


----------



## Sobakus

Rosett said:


> In the OP, the point is about what happened in the movie. The meaning of "в туалет ходил" is that Roma was busy in toilet with his private needs.


This has nothing to do with anything that I wrote. What the point of the OP was or what the meaning of the phrase is has *no relation whatsoever* to the fact that the verb _ходить_ *is not perfective*, which is what my post says.

[...]

_Mod note: Let's be nice_


----------



## Bruno Veloni

Thanks again to all of you!

I appreciate all the answers, even when they are not directly related to the main question.
Please, guys, don't argue with each other! You have been very helpful at all my questions and it is nice to read different views on (at,of?) the same question.


----------



## Rosett

Bruno Veloni said:


> Thanks again to all of you!
> 
> I appreciate all the answers, even when they are not directly related to the main question.
> Please, guys, don't argue with each other! You have been very helpful at all my questions and it is nice to read different views on (at,of?) the same question.


One can ходить в туалет in his bed, pants, под себя etc, regardless of motion. Directional features of the verbs of motion are irrelevant here, because the meaning is idiomatic.


----------

