# обо всём, что видел



## Jervoltage

Hi,

Я должен был рассказать милиционеру обо всём, что видел.
I had to tell the police officer everything I saw.

Please, why is the imperfective видел (and not the perfective увидел) used in the sentence above, even though the action of seeing was not continuing any more?

Many thanks.


----------



## Maroseika

Увидел is also possible, but the sense would be different, although the difference is subtle.
As the matter of fact, completeness/incompleteness of an action is not the only function of the category of perfectness in Russian, like in this case, where according to the context both actions are completed. More generally, this category tells what is the utternace more about: process (Imperfect) or result (Perfect).


----------



## punctuate

Jervoltage said:


> Please, why is the imperfective видел (and not the perfective увидел) used in the sentence above, even though the action is completed?


Because completeness has nothing to do with perfectiveness; that they are in close relationship is a popular mistake that happens to be written in many textbooks. The situation does not have implications for the choice of the aspect, but the verb does, compare: я рассказал тебе всё, что мне привиделось vs. я рассказал тебе всё, что видел vs. я рассказал тебе всё, что заметил or успел заметить. The action 'I saw' in this context is not required to be structureless, quite the contrary: it needs a structure for better expression of the thought. So the aspect is chosen that pays attention to the structure of the action rather than to its interactions with other actions (conditions, effects, etc).


----------



## Jervoltage

Thank you both very much.

I changed the wording of my question a little bit.



> Увидел is also possible, but the sense would be different, although the difference is subtle.



Could you please elaborate on the difference it would make if увидел was used instead?


----------



## punctuate

Jervoltage said:


> Could you please elaborate on the difference it would make if увидел was used instead?


This is hard to explain, it works on the subconscious level. I'll try. The situation that you would be describing would not be any different. However, you would be taking another view; you would add to the sentence the sense that you collected the information (an effect), and it was somehow important for something, so you had to report the action from the point of view of its effects or purposes or anything; this is opposed to the direct view that you're taking in the original case, you're just reporting your seeing of the events. In my view, that would sound clumsy; but this correlates much better with the meaning 'to notice, to make a note', for instance («всё, что я успел заметить»).


----------



## gvozd

Jervoltage said:


> Could you please elaborate on the difference it would make if увидел was used instead?



Видел - focuses on the *action in progress*. The action is, so to speak, seen as stretched in time.
Увидел - focuses on the *result*. The _process_ of 'seeing' is of no importance.

I think it's a subtle difference like in the following English examples. 

_I saw him run._ I saw a man who ran but completed his action, who began to walk or stopped afterwards.
_I saw him running._ I saw a man only while running, I didn't see him in any other state.


----------



## Maroseika

Jervoltage said:


> I changed the wording of my question a little bit.
> Could you please elaborate on the difference it would make if увидел was used instead?



I think such a choice would imply a bit less detailed account of events.


----------



## punctuate

gvozd said:


> Увидел - focuses on the *result*.


Not only on the results; for instance, ну всё, они своё уже отпели does not focus on any results, rather it "focuses" on the succession of events (again an interaction between actions, but of different kind: some actions take place after other actions). The hardest problem with such explanation is the notion of result has many aspects; there are many kinds of result, so the question is, which results should trigger  the perfective, and which should not. Other explanations have the similar problem, too.


----------



## gvozd

punctuate said:


> ну всё, они своё уже отпели does not focus on any results, rather it "focuses" on the succession of events



It focuses on the _completeness_ of the action. Two aspects: result and completeness. I can't think of any other.


----------



## punctuate

By the way:
An example of conversation when увидел is used not because of any focus on the result (I am under consideration what happened because of the seeing, so I want to use the perfective verb), but because of the focus on being conditioned by another action:
- Ты газету видел?
- Да. Открыл ящик, там и увидел.


----------



## punctuate

gvozd said:


> It focuses on the _completeness_ of the action. Two aspects: result and completeness. I can't think of any other.


You see, already two. It's not one. Since the succession without being caused is also an interaction of actions that comes to mind (отпели, so I am thinking what they are doing then, они теперь сидят в сторонке), count three already. One example of succession is they don't do now what they did before; I think this is what you meant by completeness, and it is distinct. Three possible reasons, plus one that I posted above: four. I think, a good evidence that there are more.


----------



## gvozd

punctuate said:


> You see, already two. It's not one. Since the succession without being caused is also an interaction of actions that comes to mind (отпели, so I am thinking what they are doing then, они теперь сидят в сторонке), count three already.



Они сидят в сторонке simply means that they stopped singing. The completeness of the action expressed by the verb отпели. I don't see any third aspect.


----------



## punctuate

punctuate said:


> The hardest problem with such explanation is  the notion of result has many aspects; there are many kinds of result,  so the question is, which results should trigger  the perfective, and  which should not. Other explanations have the similar problem,  too.


An illustration: how to discern они летали очень долго, так что успели  устать очень сильно and они налетали очень много часов, так что успели  устать очень сильно? Both express the result for the verb of flying.  Both underline (focus) the cause-result relationship. Both express an  interaction between actions (namely, one of them being a cause  of the other). How to explain? Well, I would try: here we have an  interaction between actions in their entirity (налетали, успели) as  opposed to an interaction between the structural elements of the action летали and the whole event успели, itself in its entirity having a cause.


gvozd said:


> Они сидят в сторонке simply means that they stopped singing. The completeness of the action expressed by the verb отпели. I don't see any third aspect.


But you see the fourth, right? As for the third, они сидят в сторонке is a meaningful action (they repose, they watch others "sing", no matter what kind of activity was meant by this "sing"), but I could invent any other if you don't like this one: они теперь продают бананы.


----------



## gvozd

punctuate said:


> But you see the fourth, right? As for the third, они сидят в сторонке is a meaningful action (they repose, they watch others "sing", no matter what kind of activity was meant by this "sing"), but I could invent any other if you don't like this one: они теперь продают бананы.



Sorry, it's too complicated and, I dare say, far-fetched.


----------



## punctuate

gvozd said:


> Sorry, it's too complicated and, I dare say, far-fetched.


But is not exactly this applied to your definitions? What I'm trying to say is that they don't work in the general case. You see, a counter-example on completeness was provided in the very first post of this thread, so you can't say that it discerns perfective and imperfective verbs as you do (and if you don't, then what _do_ you say?). On the more practical side, you have to know why you use the perfective before you do so, if you're not a native; so, I am not a native, I say I saw the newspaper in the table in that conversation; no result, so per your explanation the imperfective? As for the third phrase, I may well use the phrase exactly because I am wondering what they are doing now, not because I simply want to say they stopped singing; no complications, everything concrete.


----------



## gvozd

punctuate said:


> I say I saw the newspaper in the table in that conversation; no result, so per your explanation the imperfective?



Открыл ящик, там и увидел. Завершённость действия (completeness). Посмотрел, отметил для себя факт наличия газеты и перестал смотреть.


----------



## punctuate

But well, in the question there is also completeness. It asks the same thing as the reply answers. So?


----------



## gvozd

punctuate said:


> But well, in the question there is also completeness. It asks the same thing. So?



Простите, я не понимаю, что вы спрашиваете. Продублируйте на русском, если не тяжело.


----------



## punctuate

Хорошо, но в вопросе тоже завершённость. Он спрашивает о том же самом [, о чём речь идёт в ответе]. Итак?


----------



## Maroseika

_*Moderatorial:

Dear foreros,

Please do not forget in your discussion about the topic question and the topic starter. Discussion should  center on the phrase in the thread title. Reasoning should be aimed at elucidation of the difficult topic issue and carry on the language deliberately known to the topic starter.*_


----------



## Jervoltage

Thank you all very much. I think all this information will take some time to digest!


----------



## Ben Jamin

Jervoltage said:


> Hi,
> 
> Я должен был рассказать милиционеру обо всём, что видел.
> I had to tell the police officer everything I saw.
> 
> Please, why is the imperfective видел (and not the perfective увидел) used in the sentence above, even though the action of seeing was not continuing any more?
> 
> Many thanks.


Скажите мне, что вы *видели*, сказал милиционер.
Tell me what you saw, said the policeman. = Tell me everything you saw in the time you were observig the man.
The answer can be: He was sitting and reading a newspaper, then he stood up to greet a newcomer, then they began to talk ....

Скажите мне ещё раз, что вы *увидели *когда он встал , сказал милиционер.
Tell me once again what you saw when he got up, said the policeman.
The answer can be: "Then I saw suddenly a gun hidden under his jacket."


----------



## Jervoltage

Thank you so much!


----------

