# Loss of personal endings in the Past Tense



## carandja

In Russian the present tense is conjugated along the lines of 1st, 2nd and 3rd person: 
  читаю. читаешь, читает,  etc. 

but the past tense by gender and  number: 
  читал, читала, читало, читали.

Although I've always just accepted this, I wonder if anyone has thoughts one why this should be so different?  Since the past carries less information (we don't know if it was he or I who read), 
there must be some implications for sentence construction.

Any ideas?


----------



## franknagy

It has a very simple reason:
The "читал, читала, читало, читали" are not verbal forms but gender-dependent forms of *Participle*.
This Participles are preceeded in other languages by person-depending froms of "to be" in the present tense.
The Present tense of "to be" in Russian is *ZERO*.


----------



## ahvalj

That's true. The current Russian past tense continues the former Present Perfect that originally consisted of the Present of "to be" + the Resultative participle («есмь читалъ», "I am + the one who has read"), like in some Romance intransitive verbs: "il est venu / elle est venue / ils sont venues". Imagine now that the verb disappears, and the entire Passé composé consists of the former participle "venu/venue/venues" — you'll get the exact correspondence to the Russian situation.

The other past tenses that existed in the early written records either disappeared entirely (Imperfect («читаахъ», "je lisais"), Aorist («читахъ», "je lus") and Future Perfect («буду читалъ», "j'aurai lu / I will have read")) or, in case of the Past Perfect, were reinterpreted as modal constructions («читалъ былъ есмь» -> «читал было»). 

Likewise, the current Subjunctive is the former Present Perfect Optative («читалъ бимь», "the one who has read + I would be" -> «читалъ быхъ» -> «читал бы»), while the current Imperative is the former Present Optative.


----------



## Ben Jamin

franknagy said:


> It has a very simple reason:
> The "читал, читала, читало, читали" are not verbal forms but gender-dependent forms of *Participle*.
> This Participles are preceeded in other languages by person-depending froms of "to be" in the present tense.
> The Present tense of "to be" in Russian is *ZERO*.


To be more precise: These Participles are preceeded in other languages by person-depending froms of *"to have"* or "to be" in the present tense. In old Russian it was "to be", which is now lost (zero) in the conjugation. The (seldom used) present tense of "to be" has the same form for all persons, so it would be of no help to use it.

It may be interesting to note that a similar process is in progress in Swedish. The auxiliary "to have" has disappeared from the forms of present perfect in subordinate clauses.


----------



## ahvalj

As to the reasons why that all happened, it depends on how broad is your question. If you ask why the past tense forms lack the proper conjugated verb, the answer is that, indeed, in modern Russian the verb "to be" is not used in the Present tense (in the old language it was optional since the Indo-European times, but now the absence is obligatory). If you ask why the language develops in such a way, the answer is that languages evolve much like fashion, they often obtain new forms and lose old ones with no particular reasons. Unlike in the biological evolution, languages do not have mechanisms to become more optimized with time. The English, e. g., has lost the declension and has dramatically simplified the sentence structure with no adequate replacement. This is just how things are.


----------



## Vanya Josefstadt

The West and South Slavic languages still preserve "to be" in the present tense with past participles. Polish - "Czytałem", "czytaliśmy"  or Croatian "*čitao sam", "**čitali **smo".*


----------



## learnerr

carandja said:


> Although I've always just accepted this, I wonder if anyone has thoughts one why this should be so different?  Since the past carries less information (we don't know if it was he or I who read), there must be some implications for sentence construction.


I have thought of that, too (well, information is not so much less or more, rather it is different). I don't see any implications; as far as I can tell, both tenses can be used with as well as with no subject without any sensible discrimination. This is how it looks by feeling and by trying to make examples; if someone has real statistic data to share, they can be interesting. Perhaps this information is just redundant in most cases; I mean, it can be easily restored from what we know. Indeed, pronouns carry not so much information either.


----------



## ahvalj

The absence of personal endings or a conjugated auxiliary verb in the Past/Subjunctive is dangerous only in the absence of a subject («да, сказал»), otherwise these endings are just a mechanism of grammatical agreement, and lots of languages manage without them altogether (Scandinavian, or English in the Simple Past).

P. S. Learnerr, why does it constantly happen across all these years that I don't understand what you are trying to write?


----------



## learnerr

ahvalj said:


> If you ask why the past tense forms lack the proper conjugated verb, the  answer is that, indeed, in modern Russian the verb "to be" is not used  in the Present tense (in the old language it was optional since the Indo-European times, but now the absence is obligatory).


I don't understand what do you mean by "old language" and "now", and I don't see how now its absence is obligatory. It is seldom used – granted; it cannot be used in many contexts (difficult to define exactly in what contexts) – granted again; but it cannot be used at all – I don't see it.

----------
A remark. Of the participle origin of the past tense remind the adjectives like усталый. Sometimes some of these adjectives can even form short forms, but very seldom.


----------



## ahvalj

Yes, «усталый» is a rare example of survival of these participles in the adjective function in the modern Russian. Most other Slavic languages have much more of these — this is probably inversely correlated with the survival of the older Past Active participles on -вший (originally, Indo-European perfect participles), well alive in Russian but weakened or extinct elsewhere in the modern Slavic area.

"Old language" means the language of the early attested texts. 

In English, except for some special situations (newspaper titles etc.), the verb "to be" in the Present tense is obligatory: "I am a man". In Lithuanian, you can chose between using or not using "to be" in the Present tense: (1) «aš esu vyras» (https://www.google.ru/search?client...#newwindow=1&q="aš+esu+vyras"+site:.lt&rls=en), (2) «esu vyras» or (3) «aš vyras» (https://www.google.ru/search?client...DwDQ#newwindow=1&q="aš+vyras"+site:.lt&rls=en); the same is attested in the Old East Slavic (Зализняк, 2004: 178–181 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJUEhqQzJXT2p3ZUk/edit?usp=sharing), and this is probably close to the original situation in the Indo-European and proto-Slavic. In modern Russian the Lithuanian variant #3 is obligatory, and «я есть мужчина» can be said only by a foreigner. How this all developed in the Russian North can be seen in Zaliznyak's examples where the Old Novgorodian usage contrasts the Old Kievan one.


----------



## learnerr

Thank you.


ahvalj said:


> «я есть мужчина» can be said only by a foreigner.


Therefore, I am a foreigner? 
No, I see that this phrase is unusual, special, but I don't see that I cannot say it when I feel the need.
With the Google argument, among the top ten results are a phrase "я есть мужчина нормальной общепринятой ориентации" and something about meditation (convincing oneself that "я есть мужчина", "я есть женщина", and so on).
Also, take phrases where this word is necessary:


> А я и есть мужчина


Also, take literary texts like Leo Tolstoi's "War and Peace"; for certainty, let's take the appendix. In the very first sentence we read:


> Предмет истории есть жизнь народов и человечества.


And then this usage happens again and again.


----------



## ahvalj

All the examples you give belong to various emphatic situations. I think, most speakers would understand the difference. «Яблоко есть зелёное / какое небо есть голубое / он есть учитель» etc. may sound OK for you but I yet have to meet a person using this construction in the real life.


----------



## learnerr

Not to start arguing over nothing, but… I don't see how these four situations were not real. The colloquial situations cited were indeed more or less emphatic (but your original formulation rendered impossible emphatic use as well), but in the example of the literary use there was nothing emphatic; I personally would add the verb there just for better rhythm. Sorry for being pedantic, but it is sometimes not easy and in any case pointless to discern one kind of language from another so that to talk of one kind and ignore all others; the result is a talk about some "ideal" language that does not exist (in real life we care very little about borders between styles of speech and simply choose whatever word we feel is most suitable to mean what we want to mean), and also one never knows beforehand what kind of "ideal" language you were trying to approach.

"Какое небо есть голубое" sounds weird.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

learnerr said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Therefore, I am a foreigner?
> No, I see that this phrase is unusual, special, but I don't see that I cannot say it when I feel the need.
> With the Google argument, among the top ten results are a phrase "я есть мужчина нормальной общепринятой ориентации" and something about meditation (convincing oneself that "я есть мужчина", "я есть женщина", and so on).
> Also, take phrases where this word is necessary:
> 
> Also, take literary texts like Leo Tolstoi's "War and Peace"; for certainty, let's take the appendix. In the very first sentence we read:
> 
> And then this usage happens again and again.



You didn't mention that Tolstoi, when he uses the present tense conjugation of быть, does use the correct forms (есмь, еси, есть, есмы, есте, суть) and not the unitary 3rd person singular "есть". He never would have written a sentence like "я есть мужчина", only "я есмь мужчина".


----------



## ahvalj

Angelo di fuoco said:


> You didn't mention that Tolstoi, when he uses the present tense conjugation of быть, he does use the correct forms (есмь, еси, есть, есмы, есте, суть) and not the unitary 3rd person singular "есть". He never would have written a sentence like "я есть мужчина", only "я есмь мужчина".


Tolstoy was a product of an old educational system, when children studied the Church Slavonic at schools, so both he and all of his readers were familiar of the details of this conjugation. After 1917 this percent was falling each year, so I suspect I may turn out to be the only one in my part of the city who knows what «есте» is.


----------



## learnerr

Angelo di fuoco said:


> You didn't mention that Tolstoi, when he uses the present tense conjugation of быть, does use the correct forms (есмь, еси, есть, есмы, есте, суть) and not the unitary 3rd person singular "есть".


You seem to be missing the most important difference: this situation of the use of the word "есть" is and was concerned only with saying things about abstract entities (which I called "literary speech", for lack of better word). So, it is used only in the third person.
As for Tolstoi, I noticed that he used the third person conjugation of есть correctly, which conjugation is employed in "literary" speech today as well; but I did not notice that he ever used the words есмь or есте, at least not in ordinary contexts.


> He never would have written a sentence like "я есть мужчина", only "я есмь мужчина".


I think he would write "я мужчина" _tout court_, just as ahvalj suggested. Leo Tolstoi was not a XIV century monk.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

I am not missing anything. You speak of abstract language/literary speech in general, I am speaking about Tolstoi's usage of the Russian language. Of course, Tolstoi's language is that of an educated (highly educated) person, but you don't need to be a XIV century monk to use the present tense conjugation correctly and with naturality (although in careful speech, not in that of Platon Karataev or Katyusha Maslova).
Tolstoi rarely uses the present tense conjugation of быть, but when he uses it, he uses not only the forms of the third person, but all six of them, when he needs them. As ahvalj writes (and not as you suggest he writes), educated people did learn Church Slavonic and were familiar enough with those verbal forms to use them correctly: "я есмь мужчина" wouldn't have been impossible in Tolstoi's speech (and writing).


----------



## learnerr

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Tolstoi rarely uses the present tense conjugation of быть ...


There is an important note that I am trying to get across: it is not that you either use the verb in its dictionary or you don't, language is much more intricate. So, to simply say that "Tolstoi rarely uses the present tense conjugation of быть" is not accurate; one needs to find out when he uses and when he does not. When the subject of speech happens to be life of concrete people (which is not "literary speech" per my _ad hoc_ definition), the verb "есть" does not appear unless specially needed; when the subject appears to be history of peoples, internal and external to humans causes of action, and scientific as well as humanistic treatment of the notion of freedom, the verb "есть" is abundant.


> (and not as you suggest he (ahvalj) writes)


He suggested not to use the verb "есть" in the "copula" sense. In the case of non-"literary" phrases of the kind "I am a man" Leo Tolstoi generally follows his suggestion.


> (although in careful speech, not in that of Platon Karataev or Katyusha Maslova)


As a side note, Tolstoi's speech of Platon Karataev appears to be most careful in "War and Peace", the only piece of the romance when the language is close to poetic… But this could be a subject for a long discussion.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

When talking of specific terms: the verb "есть" (old infinitive: ясти) means "to eat", but it's not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the verb "быть", "есть" being one of its finite forms. Tolstoi very well uses the verb "быть" as a copula verb when the context, i. e. subject or style or both, requires it - and doesn't limit himself to the third person.
Karataev's speech is indeed close to poetic, but it still isnt' the language of an educated person, and it's close to Belarussian (червь гложе - note the absence of the final т).


----------



## ahvalj

People, you are discussing things that are completely irrelevant to the original question. The birch bark letters attest that in the East Slavic North the conjugated verb was absent in what is now the Past tense already in the 11th century, i. e. since the very beginning of literacy.


----------



## learnerr

Angelo di fuoco said:


> When talking of specific terms: the verb "есть" (old infinitive: ясти) means "to eat", but it's not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the verb "быть", "есть" being one of its finite forms.


These are придирки; I can name a verb by any form of its, provided that you and I understand which verb I mean. 


> Tolstoi very well uses the verb "быть" as a copula verb when the context, i. e. subject or style or both, requires it


That is what I am talking of. _Style_ is  not a mythical animal, it can be exposed via concrete terms bound to traits associated with people who are reading texts, and with texts that they are reading, thus  avoiding the need to use the word _style_ altogether.


> - and doesn't limit himself to the third person.


Very possibly he does not limit himself, but in "War and Peace" he does not need other persons either; unlike the third person.


> Karataev's speech is indeed close to poetic, but it still isnt' the language of an educated person, and it's close to Belarussian (червь гложе - note the absence of the final т).


I brought this point because you called this language "non-careful". Karataev indeed did not care of his exact formulations, and Tolstoi mentioned this explicitly, but Tolstoi, judging by the poeticity of that language, did care about them.
The point that characters like Platon Karataev or Natasha Rostova are not inclined to the generalic (how to say обобщённый) kind of thinking like Andrei Bolkonskiy's "Любовь есть жизнь" seems derivative, of the second plan to me; the main point is that this kind of thinking produces this kind of expressing the thoughts.


----------



## learnerr

ahvalj said:


> People, you are discussing things that are completely irrelevant to the original question.


Yes, I think the discussion could be better moved there.


> The birch bark letters attest that in the East Slavic North the conjugated verb was absent in what is now the Past tense already in the 11th century, i. e. since the very beginning of literacy.


One thing that it is possible to omit the verb, another thing is that the verb is usually omitted, and yet another thing is that the verb cannot be used.


----------



## ahvalj

Correction: I am sorry, in the birch bark letters the copula was absent only in the third person; in the first and second both variants (copula + participle or pronoun + participle) are attested (see pages in Zaliznyak cited above). Hope to be more careful in the future.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

learnerr said:


> These are придирки; I can name a verb by any form of its, provided that you and I understand which verb I mean.



Well, if you use the equivalent form in English, i. e., *the verb "is", you will earn bewildered looks.



learnerr said:


> Very possibly he does not limit himself, but in "War and Peace" he does not need other persons either; unlike the third person.



I cannot say you're right nor prove you wrong because I read the novel long time ago, but I definitely read forms of other persons than the 3rd of the present tense of the verb "быть" in Tolstoi's novels.



learnerr said:


> I brought this point because you called this language "non-careful". Karataev indeed did not care of his exact formulations, and Tolstoi mentioned this explicitly, but Tolstoi, judging by the poeticity of that language, did care about them.
> The point that characters like Platon Karataev or Natasha Rostova are not inclined to the generalic (how to say обобщённый) kind of thinking like Andrei Bolkonskiy's "Любовь есть жизнь" seems derivative, of the second plan to me; the main point is that this kind of thinking produces this kind of expressing the thoughts.



It could be "generalising" or, maybe, "generalistic", but I'm not sure. "Generalic" doesn't exist.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

ahvalj said:


> Correction: I am sorry, in the birch bark letters the copula was absent only in the third person; in the first and second both variants (copula + participle or pronoun + participle) are attested (see pages in Zaliznyak cited above). Hope to be more careful in the future.



That corresponds exactly to the current usage in Czech.


----------



## learnerr

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Well, if you use the equivalent form in English, i. e., *the verb "is", you will earn bewildered looks.


Maybe less bewildered looks if I say "am" according to the Roman tradition. :-D The real reason why I said есть is it's not totally like the same verb, "есть" and "был" are even used differently, one only with the nominative case (both arguments get this case), the other usually with the instrumental case.


> I cannot say you're right nor prove you  wrong because I read the novel long time ago, but I definitely read  forms of other persons than the 3rd of the present tense of the verb  "быть" in Tolstoi's novels.


This analysis is made by automatic search through the texts at az.lib.ru (here is the fourth volume of "War and Peace", other volumes are nearby, as well as other works written by him).


> "Generalic" doesn't exist.


I know.  Thank you for your comment.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

learnerr said:


> Maybe less bewildered looks if I say "am" according to the Roman tradition. :-D The real reason why I said есть is it's not totally like the same verb, "есть" and "был" are even used differently, one with the nominative case, the other with the instrumental case.



Whilst speaking about the Roman tradition: both "быть" and "есть" are all possibles uses of the verb "sum" (& esse & fuisse), e. g. "cogito, ergo sum", "mihi est filius", "Gallia divisa est in partes tres". or "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", so a verb having several meanings doesn's necessarily signify "it's not totally like the same verb", but rather that the verb is polysemic.


----------



## learnerr

As you like; just I refer to this verb as I like. Polysemy was not my point of objection, but different grammar of use was. This does not happen in English where "is" and "was" are used the same, except for a nuance that the meaning of the first is of the present tense, and the meaning of the second is of the past tense.


----------

