# сможешь or можешь?



## davdov

Hello there,

I'm writting a SMS to a friend, asking him why i don't receive news from him and i wonder:
in the sentence to ask him to write me when he can, should i say:
 "напиши мне как сможешь" or "когда можешь напиши мне", or is there a better way to ask it?

Thanks for the help!


----------



## JSV

*"напиши мне, как/когда сможешь*" is correct one.


----------



## davdov

Ha! ok thanks a lot JSV!


----------



## rusita preciosa

I also think both would work, however I would give preference to *когда*. It is slightly less colloquial and more clear.


----------



## davdov

Thx Rusita Preciosa



rusita preciosa said:


> I also think both would work, however I would give preference to *когда*. It is slightly less colloquial and more clear.


----------



## Ben Jamin

JSV said:


> *"напиши мне, как/когда сможешь*" is correct one.


And what about "*напиши мне **когда будешь мог*"?


----------



## JSV

Ben Jamin said:


> And what about "*напиши мне **когда будешь мог*"?



There is a conflict of tenses. *Будешь *is future tense while *мог *is past. If we translate it to English it will be something like *Write me when you will was able*.

Alternatives are:
- *Напиши мне, когда сможешь*
- *Напиши мне**,** когда будет возможность*


----------



## ahvalj

Ben Jamin said:


> And what about "*напиши мне **когда будешь мог*"?


You probably mean the construction _będę działał_, but it doesn't exist in Russian.


----------



## henrylee100

actually from a philosophical point of view, don't you people think that 'when you can' is a bit redundant here, I mean, how would the other person text you if they couldn't do it? So perhaps just *напиши мне* would suffice.


----------



## JSV

henrylee100 said:


> actually from a philosophical point of view, don't you people think that 'when you can' is a bit redundant here, I mean, how would the other person text you if they couldn't do it? So perhaps just *напиши мне* would suffice.



Nope, I would disagree with this version. *Напиши мне* has significantly different meaning than *Напиши мне**,** когда будет возможность**.*


----------



## henrylee100

JSV said:


> Nope, I would disagree with this version. *Напиши мне* has significantly different meaning than *Напиши мне**,** когда будет возможность**.*


and how exactly is it different, isn't it implied that the other person is expected to text you whenever they get a chance. I mean, if they're tied up and stuff, they won't text you, right?


----------



## Maroseika

henrylee100 said:


> actually from a philosophical point of view, don't you people think that 'when you can' is a bit redundant here, I mean, how would the other person text you if they couldn't do it? So perhaps just *напиши мне* would suffice.



Напиши мне is almost an order.
Напиши мне, когда сможешь is  a modest request.


----------



## henrylee100

Maroseika said:


> Напиши мне is almost an order.
> Напиши мне, когда сможешь is  a modest request.


what abt *нпш мн пжста (*as it might appear in a text message)


----------



## Ben Jamin

ahvalj said:


> You probably mean the construction _będę działał_, but it doesn't exist in Russian.


Actually I thought about about "będę mógł" (sorry my Russian has become rusty), but does it mean also that  a  perifrastic future tense for the verb "мочь" does not exist?


----------



## Drink

Ben Jamin said:


> Actually I thought about about "będę mógł" (sorry my Russian has become rusty), but does it mean also that  a  perifrastic future tense for the verb "мочь" does not exist?



Theoretically "буду мочь" would be the periphrastic future, but I don't think anyone ever says this. Note that in Russian the periphrastic future uses only the infinitive, not the past form of the verb.


----------



## ahvalj

Ben Jamin said:


> Actually I thought about about "będę mógł" (sorry my Russian has become rusty), but does it mean also that  a  perifrastic future tense for the verb "мочь" does not exist?


It may be formed, but in very limited contexts and will be not very literary («тогда он не будет мочь этого делать»). The literary equivalent of this construction will be something like «будет в состоянии».


----------



## Maroseika

henrylee100 said:


> what abt *нпш мн пжста (*as it might appear in a text message)



I have no idea about the culture of text messages, but for me Напиши мне, пожалуйста is more or less equal stylistically to Напиши мне, когда сможешь.


----------



## JSV

henrylee100 said:


> and how exactly is it different, isn't it implied that the other person is expected to text you whenever they get a chance. I mean, if they're tied up and stuff, they won't text you, right?



*Напиши мне* (if used as is) sounds as an order. Of course slight modifications change it's meaning (such as, *Напиши мне, пожалуйста*; *Ну напиши мне*; *Напиши мне хоть что-нибудь*) but all of them are requests that ask addressee to do it now (at earliest convenience).

On the other hand *Напиши мне**,** когда будет возможность *is a request that asks addressee to write when he/she will be able to (after an hour, after a day, after a month, after an year, ...). And it looks more like a wish than as a request/order.


----------



## JSV

henrylee100 said:


> what abt *нпш мн пжста (*as it might appear in a text message)



This "text message oriented" version of *"напиши мне, пожалуйста*" is a polite request to write something now (at earliest convenience).


----------



## JSV

Ben Jamin said:


> Actually I thought about about "będę mógł" (sorry my Russian has become rusty), but does it mean also that  a  perifrastic future tense for the verb "мочь" does not exist?



Well there are two issues in original text.

1) First one is that in text "*напиши мне, как/когда сможешь*" it sounds more natural when one uses a verb in perfect aspect. Verb "*мочь*" has perfect pair "*смочь*". Fortunately, "смочь" can easily be used in future tense "*я смогу/ ты сможешь/ он сможет*". So as the result we can easily build a final sentence "*напиши мне, как/когда сможешь*".

2) If for any reason it is necessary to use "*мочь*" in future tense then, unfortunately, it cannot be easily done. One should use alternatives such as: 
- *я буду/ты будешь/он будет в состоянии*
- *[как только] будет возможность*
*- как только буду/будешь/будет иметь возможность*

Examples:
*- Я тебе позвоню, как только будет возможность [это сделать]*
*- I will call you as soon as I will be able to* *[do it]

- Когда он будет в состоянии позвонить, он это сделает
*


----------



## Ben Jamin

JSV said:


> Well there are two issues in original text.
> 
> 1) First one is that in text "*напиши мне, как/когда сможешь*" it sounds more natural when one uses a verb in perfect aspect. Verb "*мочь*" has perfect pair "*смочь*". Fortunately, "смочь" can easily be used in future tense "*я смогу/ ты сможешь/ он сможет*". So as the result we can easily build a final sentence "*напиши мне, как/когда сможешь*".
> 
> 2) If for any reason it is necessary to use "*мочь*" in future tense then, unfortunately, it cannot be easily done. One should use alternatives such as:
> - *я буду/ты будешь/он будет в состоянии*
> - *[как только] будет возможность*
> *- как только буду/будешь/будет иметь возможность*
> 
> Examples:
> *- Я тебе позвоню, как только будет возможность [это сделать]*
> *- I will call you as soon as I will be able to* *[do it]
> 
> - Когда он будет в состоянии позвонить, он это сделает
> *


 So it seems that the choice of aspect here is determined by the virtual lack of future  tense of "*мочь*" in imperfective?
In Polish it is the opposite, the verb "*can*" does not exist in perfective apect. All prefixed versions of "*móc*" have another meaning (*pomóc*= help. *zmóc *= overwhelm, *wymóc*= compel, coerce).


----------



## JSV

Yes, the main problem here is the lack of future tense of "*мочь*" in Russian, meaning that "*буду мочь*" does not sound good and not used in general.


----------



## henrylee100

JSV said:


> Yes, the main problem here is the lack of future tense of "*мочь*" in Russian, meaning that "*буду мочь*" does not sound good and not used in general.


isn't *смогу *the future tense of *могу*? 
Technically it's the same stem, so it's the same verb with the same referential meaning, the only thing that is different is the aspect


----------



## JSV

henrylee100 said:


> isn't *смогу *the future tense of *могу*?
> Technically it's the same stem, so it's the same verb with the same referential meaning, the only thing that is different is the aspect



Nope. It is quite common mistake even with native Russian speakers. "*Смогу*" is not a future tense of "*мочь*". It becomes more clear if one takes a look at the following samples:

- *спою* is not a future tense of *петь* (but "*буду петь*")
- *станцую* is not a future tense of *танцевать* (but "*буду танцевать*")
- *увижу* is not a future tense of *видеть*(but "*буду видеть*")

and so on, and so on.


----------



## henrylee100

JSV said:


> Nope. It is quite common mistake even with native Russian speakers. "*Смогу*" is not a future tense of "*мочь*". It becomes more clear if one takes a look at the following samples:
> 
> - *спою* is not a future tense of *петь* (but "*буду петь*")
> - *станцую* is not a future tense of *танцевать* (but "*буду танцевать*")
> - *увижу* is not a future tense of *видеть*(but "*буду видеть*")
> 
> and so on, and so on.



but don't all those pairs of verbs have the same referential meaning?
*танцевать *- make it perfective and it becomes *станцевать *- it still means dance, except that in the first case it has an imperfective connotation and is thus closer in meaning to to be dancing while in the second case it refers to a single act of dancing and is thus closer in meaning to just 'dance'. I mean, you wouldn't say that 'dance' and 'be dancing' are two different verbs in English, they're just two aspects of the same verb (dance). The only difference in Russian is that the change in aspect is more 'synthetic', you use a prefix rather than an analytical form consisting of several words.


----------



## Awwal12

> I mean, you wouldn't say that 'dance' and 'be dancing' are two different  verbs in English, they're just two aspects of the same verb (dance).


If every verb could have just two morthologically regular perfective and imperfective variants, it would be wonderful, but it is impossible. Sure it's a convention after all, but a pretty convenient convention.


> The only difference in Russian is that the change in aspect is more  'synthetic', you use a prefix rather than an analytical form consisting  of several words.


Just think about полоть - прополоть - пропалывать, бегать - побе́гать - сбе́гать - забе́гать, etc.


----------



## JSV

henrylee100 said:


> but don't all those pairs of verbs have the same referential meaning?



Yes, they do have.



henrylee100 said:


> *танцевать *- make it perfective and it becomes *станцевать *- it still means dance, except that in the first case it has an imperfective connotation and is thus closer in meaning to to be dancing while in the second case it refers to a single act of dancing and is thus closer in meaning to just 'dance'. I mean, you wouldn't say that 'dance' and 'be dancing' are two different verbs in English, they're just two aspects of the same verb (dance). The only difference in Russian is that the change in aspect is more 'synthetic', you use a prefix rather than an analytical form consisting of several words.



Sorry, but I do not understand the question (if any).


----------



## Ben Jamin

In all Slavic languages the perfective aspect is expressed by using different lexical items. The imperfective and perfective lexemes sometimes have exactly the same meaning, but usually they haven't. The so called "pairs" is a fiction propagated by teachers both in the schools for natives and for foreigners. For every unprefixed imperfective verb you have many prefixed perfective verbs, with different meanings. Sometimes one of them has exactly the same meaning as the unprefixed one, but mostly not. Then there are the prefixed  imperfective verbs with different endings formed from the perfective verbs. These form pairs more often, but not always. So, the aspect is expressed lexically, not morphologically.


----------



## henrylee100

Ben Jamin said:


> In all Slavic languages the perfective aspect is expressed by using different lexical items. The imperfective and perfective lexemes sometimes have exactly the same meaning, but usually they haven't. The so called "pairs" is a fiction propagated by teachers both in the schools for natives and for foreigners. For every unprefixed imperfective verb you have many prefixed perfective verbs, with different meanings. Sometimes one of them has exactly the same meaning as the unprefixed one, but mostly not. Then there are the prefixed  imperfective verbs with different endings formed from the perfective verbs. These form pairs more often, but not always. So, the aspect is expressed lexically, not morphologically.


Can you really define a clear boundary between what constitutes a separate lexeme and what is just a morphological change.
The way I've always interpreted it is that if the stem of the verb remains the same then it's the same verb.


----------

