# вылить vs налить



## Konstantinos

Чай остыл, и я вылил его.

This is from a book about grammar exercises and I don't understand why вылил is chosen and not налил. Any help?

Actually it also has полил and залил but I feel they have a little different meanings: полить = to start pouring, залить = to flood.


----------



## pimlicodude

Konstantinos said:


> Чай остыл, и я вылил его.
> 
> This is from a book about grammar exercises and I don't understand why вылил is chosen and not налил. Any help?
> 
> Actually it also has полил and залил but I feel they have a little different meanings: полить = to start pouring, залить = to flood.


вылить: pour it out
налить: pour it onto something


----------



## Konstantinos

And in English what is the difference between pour it out and pour it onto? I think to pour out means to put liquid in a glass and then serve it, while to pour onto means just to put liquid in a glass?


----------



## nizzebro

Both out and вы- relate to the basic process only, not external things like motion of the subject - which might be the case for some other verbs in both languages, but it is rather a figurative feature, not the core principle.


----------



## Awwal12

Вы́лить: pour sth out, emptying the original container in process by default (but that part can be overridden by the contents of the sentence). The verb is semantically focused on the original container, although you can specify where the liquid went as well ("вылить воду из ведра на пол").

Нали́ть: pour sth onto sth, or into some container. The verb is semantically focused on the destination of the liquid (though, again, the original container can be specified) and doesn't presume emptying the original container.
"Налить чай из чайника в чашку."

Cf. also вли́ть, most typically used for pouring some liquid into another liquid.


----------



## Konstantinos

And what about пролить? Does it make the same sense as the вылить?

Чай остыл, и я вылил его.
Чай остыл, и я пролил его.


----------



## nizzebro

Konstantinos said:


> And what about пролить?


spill; accidentally let the liquid out. _Я споткнулся/резко повернулся и пролил чай
Вылить _is intentional.

In_ пролить, _the sense is probably by analogy with _пропустить -_ to let go/to miss, literally like "trough-pass". Sometimes the logic of a prefix is not so evident, or maybe formed by just taking the most suitable free option.


----------



## Konstantinos

Thanks. 
And Am I right about these two? полить = to start pouring, залить = to flood?


----------



## Awwal12

Konstantinos said:


> And what about пролить


"To spill" (plus some more marginal usages). I.e., basically, to inadvertently allow some part of the liquid to flow from the original container, potentially also staining some surface or just making it wet as a result: пролить что-л. (из чего-л.) (на что-л.)

Cf. разли́ть (which also implies that all the liquid was spilled and/or it covered a particularly large surface): разлить что-л.  (по чему-л.).


----------



## nizzebro

Konstantinos said:


> Thanks.
> And Am I right about these two? полить = to start pouring, залить = to flood?


_полить _- to start pouring; but also it could mean to pour some surface with smth, or to water (a plant).
This verb shows two implementations of по-: initially it is about a portion of a process, but in unidirectional motion verbs, it is about a starting phase and so pragmatically means beginning of motion; _полить_ uses this approach for its first, intransitive, meaning - while not a motion verb, it is close to this category. The second, transitive, meaning, uses the basic logic of "having that process for some time necessary for a relevant purpose".

_залить - _to flood a surface, or to pour a liquid into a tank (e.g. gas). _За-_ implies "behind", "other side", or crossing some threshold; in the former meaning it is rendered as covering the whole area, in the latter - as moving to the other side of the container.


----------



## Awwal12

Konstantinos said:


> Thanks.
> And Am I right about these two? полить = to start pouring, залить = to flood?


Зали́ть:
- "to flood", "to pour the liquid so that the object gets completely submerged" ("зали́ть ча́йные ли́стья кипятко́м"); 
- "to fill a container with the liquid", or "to pour all the liquid into the container", generally formal ("зали́ть то́пливо в ба́к");
- "to spill the liquid so that it covers a large portion of the object" ("зали́ть руба́шку черни́лами");
- "to extinguish (a fire) by pouring the liquid into the fire" ("зали́ть ого́нь пи́вом").

Поли́ть:
- "to start pouring" ("в по́лдень поли́л до́ждь");
- "to pour for a while" ("до́ждь поли́л немно́го и переста́л"; "поле́й мне́ на́ руки, пожа́луйста");
- "to water" ("не забу́дь поли́ть цветы́").


----------



## Konstantinos

Now I don't understand why the initial clause:

Чай остыл, и я вылил его.

doesn't use the полил:

Чай остыл, и я полил его:

The tea got cold, and I started pouring it.

?


----------



## nizzebro

Konstantinos said:


> The tea got cold, and I started pouring it.


_полил _can mean "started pouring" only intransitively, where the subject itself is a liquid - _в по́лдень поли́л до́ждь _provided above by Awwal - it is the rain who started. Other, transitive uses of _полить _ imply that the object is not water but something that receives water.
You probably mean _Чай остыл, и я стал наливать его в свою чашку _(you started filling your cup with tea) - or, _...стал разливать его по чашкам_ (you started filling numerous cups with tea - e.g. of your guests; _разливать _also means to pour out, but as serve it, distribute, with a plural object like glasses, cups etc. _Наливать в чашки_ also makes sense, but only where the purpose is not serving but only filling many cups.)


----------



## Awwal12

Konstantinos said:


> Now I don't understand why the initial clause:
> 
> Чай остыл, и я вылил его.
> 
> doesn't use the полил


Because the point of the sentence is that you've discarded the tea (as tea is normally drunk hot). 
Осты́л here is used in the meaning "turned cold (= of the ambient temperature)", i.e. "полностью остыл", not in the meaning "cooled down to the preferable temperature" ("доста́точно осты́л", "подосты́л" etc.).


----------



## nizzebro

Oh, now I see the problem (with 'pour out' as 'serve').

налить/наливать чай (whom: себе, другу(dat.); where to - в чашку(acc.)) - to pour onto a certain cup ('на-' = "onto").
разлить/разливать чай ("where to" по чашкам(dat.), or, less common, в чашки(acc.)) - to pour out as to serve ('раз-' works as "dis-"); the argument is needed, especially for the perfective form, to avoid confusing with the sense of "spill".

разлить/разливать = пролить/проливать чай - to spill it (to let it out accidentally) ('раз-' as "spread" and 'про-' as "through")
вылить/выливать -  to pour out as to throw out, discard, intentionally emptying the cup/whatever contains it ('вы-' = "out")

полить растение (acc) чаем(instr) - to water a plant with tea - just for a case ('по-' = "do (pouring) for a while")


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> полить растение (acc) чаем(instr) - to water a plant with tea - just for a case (по- = do (pouring) for a while)


No, I don't think so. In "полить что-л. чем-л." по- is generally perfective/lexical; note that it has the imperfective counterpart "поливать что-л. чем-л.", which is normally not the case for the verbs productively formed with the по- prefix in the meaning "for a while".


----------



## pimlicodude

There is also вода поднимается и *заливает* пляж, the tide is running up the beach, as glossed in Multitran, and really the same long list of prefixed forms with slight nuances as any other verb.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> No, I don't think so. In "полить что-л. чем-л." по- is generally perfective/lexical; note that it has the imperfective counterpart "поливать что-л. чем-л.", which is normally not the case for the verbs productively formed with the по- prefix in the meaning "for a while".


You are right, but I only wanted to accent that it is not about a specific spatial pattern - the matter is only "was pouring/watering and then stopped". Western linguists use "for a while" for the general concept of по-, which, of course, may be confusing a goal-oriented act with a stretch of process, but anyway, any по- prefixed process in perfective is not just a stretch but logically completed action (we cannot say "он поел" if he was shot while eating, but equally it's true for "он попрыгал на одной ноге"). There is no gramm. aspect in English, and the "for/in" opposition only correlates to it but is not the equivalent.


----------



## Awwal12

pimlicodude said:


> There is also вода поднимается и *заливает* пляж


Yes:


Awwal12 said:


> "to flood", "to pour the liquid so that the object gets completely submerged" ("зали́ть ча́йные ли́стья кипятко́м");


I likely should've noted that the verb allows two government models with a change of perspective:
заливать что-л. - the subject is the liquid;
заливать что-л. (чем-л.) - the subject is some other agent while the liquid is the optional instrument.
Eng. "flood" works in a similar fashion, of course, but that may be not quite obvious.


----------

