# Serbian (BCS): formation of imperfect



## Psi-Lord

Discussions on how common the imperfect tense still is across the BCS continuum aside, would there be guidelines on how to form it?

I mean, for the aorist, for instance, a Serbian friend has recently taught me that:



			
				Bolek said:
			
		

> - the verbs in _-ći_ and _-sti_ form the aorist tense by removing the _-(n)u_ ending from the 3rd person plural of the present tense and then applying the following endings: _-oh, -e, -e, -osmo, -oste, -oše_; if the stem ends in _-k_, _-g_ or _-h_, then you have to palatalize it (i.e. replace it with _-č_, _-ž_, _-š_) in front of _-e_;
> 
> - for the verbs in just _-ti_ it’s easy, just remove the _-ti_ and add _-h, /, /, -smo, -ste, -še_ (_/_ means that there is no ending for that person).


Are there similar rules of thumb for the imperfect as well? I tried searching for anything on the topic, but the very little I could find in W. R. Morfill’s _Simplified Grammar of the Serbian Language_ (even if published in 1887!) couldn’t lead me to any conclusions, as it just presents the forms one after another according to the author’s conjugation groups.


----------



## phosphore

It is not that simple. The Imperfect Tense is formed from the (modified) Present Tense stem with endings: -(ij)ah, -(ij)aše, -(ij)aše, -(ij)asmo, -(ij)aste, -(ij)ahu; but it is complicated even for us. I could try to explain it properly tomorrow or after tomorrow.

Here are some examples:

pisati - pisah, pisaše, pisaše, pisasmo, pisaste, pisahu
slušati - slušah, slušaše, slušaše, slušasmo, slušaste, slušahu
pevati - pevah, pevaše, and so on
držati - držah, držaše, and so on

I do not know if you are used with Serbian accents and if I should write them, because they are pretty important here, sometimes being the only difference between Aorist and Imperfect Tense forms.


----------



## Psi-Lord

phosphore said:


> I do not know if you are used with Serbian accents and if I should write them, because they are pretty important here, sometimes being the only difference between Aorist and Imperfect Tense forms.


I’m familiar with them from a purely theoretical basis (that is, I know they exist, know some basics on how speakers of the BCS range tend to differ regarding the use of them, and try to remember them when I happen to find materials indicating them – but this can be tough, since I did study Serbian for some time, but don’t really speak it). So, if you can include accents, please do ; however, since it may be cumbersome to do so, I totally understand and will enjoy reading any information on the topic anyway.

As a matter of fact, that friend who gave me those guidelines for the aorist didn’t mention anything about proper accents, so I can only approach the aorist itself from a written point of view.


----------



## phosphore

You may know that each verb in Serbian has two stems but I will repeat it anyway: the present tense and the infinitive stem. The imperfect tense is formed from both the present tense and the infinitive stem; the aorist tense is formed from the infinitive stem.

The present tense stem: (some say) 2. person singular or (some say) 1. person plural of the present tense (it is the same, I think, and for most verbs you could use 1. person singular as well) without the ending -š or -mo; radi-(mo), piše-(mo).

The infinitive stem: if the verb infinitive form ends in -ti but not -sti, then just that infinitive form without the ending -ti; radi-(ti), pisa-(ti); else, 1. person of the aorist tense without the ending -oh; doći - dođ-(oh), pasti - pad-(oh). I know this does not help really much, because you need the infinitive stem to form the aorist tense, and to find the infinitive stem you need to know the aorist tense forms 


Anyway, the forum is closing for maintenance in few minutes, I think, so I will continue this later.


----------



## Psi-Lord

phosphore said:


> You may know that each verb in Serbian has two stems but I will repeat it anyway: the present tense and the infinitive stem. The imperfect tense is formed from both the present tense and the infinitive stem; the aorist tense is formed from the infinitive stem.


Indeed, I do. However, I’ve also been taught that it’s interesting to think of a third stem of sorts as well, the truncated present stem, which would be the present stem minus its final vowel (that is, if the present stem of _govoriti_ is _govori-_, then its truncated stem is _govor-_).



phosphore said:


> The present tense stem: (some say) 2. person singular or (some say) 1. person plural of the present tense (it is the same, I think, and for most verbs you could use 1. person singular as well) without the ending -š or -mo; radi-(mo), piše-(mo).


True, I also learnt to use the 1st person plural of the present, but I’ve seen materials that use another person instead.



phosphore said:


> The infinitive stem: if the verb infinitive form ends in -ti but not -sti, then just that infinitive form without the ending -ti; radi-(ti), pisa-(ti); else, 1. person of the aorist tense without the ending -oh; doći - dođ-(oh), pasti - pad-(oh). I know this does not help really much, because you need the infinitive stem to form the aorist tense, and to find the infinitive stem you need to know the aorist tense forms


But then, what if I combine this to the guidelines my friend gave me for the aorist? According to him, one can obtain the infinitive of verbs ending in _-sti_ or _-ći_ from the 3rd person plural of the present minus the ending _-(n)u_. So, even if I don’t know the aorist of e.g. _pasti_, its 3rd person plural in the present is _padnu_, correct? If so, then the infinitive stem is _pad-_, which matches what you’ve written. Same for _doći_ (_dođu_, _dođ-_).

I’m trying to come up with ‘theories’ about the imperfect on my own, based on the little I can find around. I was going to write about them, so I could be in a more active role in this discussion, but since there are still gaps in my reasoning, I’ll refrain from posting them, and will just be looking forwarding to reading more on the topic.


----------



## phosphore

Psi-Lord said:


> Indeed, I do. However, I’ve also been taught that it’s interesting to think of a third stem of sorts as well, the truncated present stem, which would be the present stem minus its final vowel (that is, if the present stem of _govoriti_ is _govori-_, then its truncated stem is _govor-_).
> 
> 
> True, I also learnt to use the 1st person plural of the present, but I’ve seen materials that use another person instead.
> 
> 
> But then, what if I combine this to the guidelines my friend gave me for the aorist? According to him, one can obtain the infinitive of verbs ending in _-sti_ or _-ći_ from the 3rd person plural of the present minus the ending _-(n)u_. So, even if I don’t know the aorist of e.g. _pasti_, its 3rd person plural in the present is _padnu_, correct? If so, then the infinitive stem is _pad-_, which matches what you’ve written. Same for _doći_ (_dođu_, _dođ-_).
> 
> I’m trying to come up with ‘theories’ about the imperfect on my own, based on the little I can find around. I was going to write about them, so I could be in a more active role in this discussion, but since there are still gaps in my reasoning, I’ll refrain from posting them, and will just be looking forwarding to reading more on the topic.


 
It appears you know more than me on this! 

I have never thought about it, since I never needed a system to know the aorist tense forms, it is something you simply know, but it seems your friend's system is correct. I'm impressed that you know such things, since hardly anyone know them here; maybe just those who went to pretty good schools and those who study languages.

Anyway, if there is no final vowel in the present tense stem, the imperfect tense is formed by adding endings: -ijāh, -ijāš-e, -ijāš-e, -ijās-mo, -ijās-te, -ijāh-u on it; else, it is formed from a "imperfect tense stem" by adding endings: -(j)āh, -(j)āš-e, -(j)āš-e, -(j)ās-mo, -(j)ās-te, -(j)āh-u on it, and that "imperfect tense stem" is: the present tense stem without the final vowel, if the infinitive stem ends in -nu- (brinuti), -ø- (čuti) or the present tense stem ends in -ī-, and the infinitive tense stem ends in -i- or -e- (nositi, videti), and in that case the endings are -(j)āh, -(j)āš-e, and so on; else, it is the infinitive stem and the endings are -āh, -āš-e, and so on. I don't think this helps 

In the first post, I mentioned the accents because sometimes the only difference between an aorist tense and an imperfect tense form is in the postaccent length: držāh, držā, držā, držasmo, držaste, držaše being the aorist tense forms, and držāh, držāše, držāše, držāsmo, držāste, držāhu being the imperfect tense forms; and sometimes the difference is in the accent, too: písah, písa, písa, písasmo, písaste, písahu being the aorist tense forms, and pîsāh, pîsāše, pîsāše, pîsāsmo, pîsāste, pîsāhu being the imperfect tense forms.

I would be glad if I helped, but I don't think I did.  In any case, I am ready to answer any of your questions on this.


----------



## musicalchef

I had thought the imperfect came from a completely different (but often related) verb stem?  Is this something different?  (I'm thinking of verb pairs like dati/davati, kupiti, kupavati, etc)


----------



## phosphore

I see what you mean: the imperfect _is_ used with imperfective verbs (I mean in theory; it is not really used, except, some say, in few dialects) and the aorist tense with perfective verbs; but there is a number of verbs which are both perfective and imperfective, and also you can change the verbal aspect by adding a prefix or an infix: pevati - ispevati, zapevati, otpevati, and so on, or kupiti - kupovati - nakupovati.


----------



## Psi-Lord

phosphore said:


> It appears you know more than me on this!


Hah! No, no, not at all! If we rewind time, I knew nothing about the Serbian imperfect at all, and only got those guidelines for the aorist yesterday or the day before. However, having Saturday completely off, I did think a lot about the topic, and started putting the puzzle together.

I’d seen imperfect forms, but there was no straightforward explanation on how they came to be. When you gave me the endings, however, I tried to compare the forms I had, drop the endings, and see if matching them to the stems I knew how to derive would take me somewhere. Therefore, as you can see, you giving me the endings for the imperfect was quite an important key – grammatical reverse engineering! 



phosphore said:


> I have never thought about it, since I never needed a system to know the aorist tense forms, it is something you simply know, but it seems your friend's system is correct. I'm impressed that you know such things, since hardly anyone know them here; maybe just those who went to pretty good schools and those who study languages.


That friend of mine does know a lot about such things, but I haven’t had any chances to ask him about the imperfect system, so it was a great thing that I had the forum here to throw it in. I’m not sure what exactly he’s studying, but it’s indeed related to philology. And I can see how it’s not something native speakers usually know – we also study primitive and derived forms for Portuguese verbs at school (similarly to how you study their equivalents in Latin), but, since we don’t use such derivation processes actively in everyday life (we just _know_ the paradigms after all), most students totally forget about them when tests are over. 



phosphore said:


> Anyway, if there is no final vowel in the present tense stem, the imperfect tense is formed by adding endings: -ijāh, -ijāš-e, -ijāš-e, -ijās-mo, -ijās-te, -ijāh-u on it; else, it is formed from a "imperfect tense stem" by adding endings: -(j)āh, -(j)āš-e, -(j)āš-e, -(j)ās-mo, -(j)ās-te, -(j)āh-u on it, and that "imperfect tense stem" is: the present tense stem without the final vowel, if the infinitive stem ends in -nu- (brinuti), -ø- (čuti) or the present tense stem ends in -ī-, and the infinitive tense stem ends in -i- or -e- (nositi, videti), and in that case the endings are -(j)āh, -(j)āš-e, and so on; else, it is the infinitive stem and the endings are -āh, -āš-e, and so on. I don't think this helps


Oh, no, it _does_ help a lot! To tell you the truth, this is the very point I’d had no luck in figuring out. I kind of had found out about how the endings and the stems combined differently depending on how the stem ended and how the endings affected possible stem-final consonants, but I couldn’t come up with ‘rules’ that covered all the verbs I was using as ‘study subjects’.

An example…

I’d figured out (somehow) that I could use the truncated present stem of _nositi_ (_nos-_) and _videti_ (_vid-_) to form the imperfect, and that the imperfect endings shifted the stem-final consonants from _-s-_ and _-d-_ to _-š-_ and _-đ-_, respectively:

_nošah, nošaše, nošaše, nošasmo, nošaste, nošahu_

_viđah, viđaše, viđaše, viđasmo, viđaste, viđahu_

But then, I wasn’t sure about what to do for _govoriti_, because the final _-r-_ of its truncated present stem, _govor-_, couldn’t be shifted to a palatal form – there’s no _govorjah, govorjaše_ etc. Because of that, I thought it might just take a full ending (_govorijah, govorijaše_ etc.), but I couldn’t rull out a short one (_govorah, govoraše_ etc.), or a full infinitive stem (_govoriah, govoriaše_ etc.).

Since materials on Serbian imperfect mention it’s gone from the standard language, but may be found in dialects or more formal literature, I realised I might look a form of the imperfect of _govoriti_ in the Bible!  And there, on Mark 14:36, I found ‘I govoraše: Ava Oče! Sve je moguće Tebi; pronesi čašu ovu mimo mene; ali opet ne kako ja hoću, nego kako Ti.’



phosphore said:


> In the first post, I mentioned the accents because sometimes the only difference between an aorist tense and an imperfect tense form is in the postaccent length: držāh, držā, držā, držasmo, držaste, držaše being the aorist tense forms, and držāh, držāše, držāše, držāsmo, držāste, držāhu being the imperfect tense forms; and sometimes the difference is in the accent, too: písah, písa, písa, písasmo, písaste, písahu being the aorist tense forms, and pîsāh, pîsāše, pîsāše, pîsāsmo, pîsāste, pîsāhu being the imperfect tense forms.


I find it such a pity that many materials choose not to indicate accents at all. Sure, it can be complicated, but I would never know about these differences between aorist and imperfect forms, for instance, if you hadn’t mentioned them. I have a copy of Morton Benson, so there’s a lot I can try to learn about accents from it; yet, since it doesn’t mention the aorist and the imperfect either, I couldn’t learn those patterns even from it. 

Thanks for the indications, though.



phosphore said:


> I would be glad if I helped, but I don't think I did.


Quite the contrary – as I said before, you did help a lot.



phosphore said:


> In any case, I am ready to answer any of your questions on this.


Thanks. I’ll be sure to be dropping them as they pop in my head.  Maybe I could also try to conjugate a handful of verbs in the imperfect (and perhaps also the aorist), just to check if I got the rules correctly?


----------



## phosphore

If I really helped, it was my pleasure  Feel free to post anything you want and I will tell you if it is correct.

The accents are pretty important and that is something everyone will realize by that you are stranger or maybe dialectal speaker, because many natives do make mistakes in grammar, but almost never make mistakes with accents; but I don't know how I could help, since there is no any simple rule about them. I must mention, though, that the imperfect tense forms always have the postaccent legths on endings (just like the present tense forms). 

About your examples govoriti and videti, I must say the forms _govorjah_ and _govorijah_ are not grammatically correct forms, I think, but barely no one would notice it (it would be only noticed that you used an imperfect tense form, because it is extremely unusual); but everyone would tell you that _*govoriah_ is not correct, since _-ia-_ does not exist in Serbian (except in some foreign names like Mia, or some acronyms like CIA, but even there it looks strange).

Also about the form _viđah_ you mentioned, I must say it can be pronounced in two ways, like _vïđāh_ (with the short falling accent and the postaccent length) being the first person singular form of the verb _videti_ (though I said the imperfect tense is not used, if ever is, with the perfective verbs) and like _víđāh_ (with the long rising accent and the postaccent length), the first person singular form of the verb _viđati._ It is such a pity you can't hear that difference, even to me it sounds interesting.

I am also curious how come you are interested in Serbian? I mean Brazil has some 200M ihabitants, while Serbia has less than 7.5M and only up to 25M people speak Serbian.


----------



## WannaBeMe

I am going to try to be as short and clear as possible.
*Aorist* 
Past terminated or finished action that hapened shortly before the time of the telling or a tense used for telling stories and fairy-tales. It is formed from *infinitive stem* (mostly of perfective verbs) by adding personal endings. 
If stem ends on a vowel then : *-h* / stem / stem // *-smo* / *-ste*/ *-še*.
If stem ends on a consonant then: *-oh */* -e */* -e */* -osmo */* -oste* /* -oše*.
Verbs which stem ends on consonants _*k,g,h*_ execute _palatalization_ thus k>č / g>ž / h>š.

ljubiti - ljubi*h */ljubi / ljubi / ljibi*smo* / ljubi*ste* / ljubi*še*.
reći (<rek-ti) - rek*oh* / reče / reče / rek*osmo* / rek*oste */ rek*oše*.

By verbs of the II class sufix *-nu* is not being lost, if a _vowel_ stands _in front_ of *-nu* sufixes: mi*nu*ti - mi*nu*h/mi*nu*/mi*nu*/mi*nu*smo/mi*nu*ste/mi*nu*še.
And if in front of the sufix -*nu *a consonant take place then sufix -nu can be droped out but it must not be. It doesnt realy metter.
dig*nu*ti - dig*nu*h or digoh (but in case -nu is droped out, the endings -oh must be added because the stem ends then on a consonant).

*Imperfect*
Past continuous action and also used for telling stories and fairy-tales. It is formed from *present stem* (mostly of imperfective verbs) ( and it is mostly the same as infinitive stem) and infix *-ja-* (after hard consonants) and *-a-* (after soft consonants) by adding personal endings: -*h* / -*še* / -*še* / -*smo* / -*ste* / -*hu*.
The softening of consonants d>đ / t>ć / n>nj / l>lj /// k>č / g>ž / h>š /// s>š / z>ž /// b>blj / p>plj / v>vlj .
If the* stem* already ends on -*a- *then it will be "melt" with the infix -*a*-.

I recomand you that you make this stam by droping of the personal ending of the 3rd. person plural like: moći - oni mogu / hoditi - oni hode / vidjeti- oni vide / gledati - oni gledaju and so on.

moći (mog-ti) - moža*h *(< mog-ja-h [g+ja>ža]) / moža*še* / moža*še* / moža*smo* / moža*ste* / moža*hu.*

hoditi - hođa*h* (hod-ja-h [d+ja>đa])/ hođa*še* / hođa*še* / hođa*smo* / hođa*hu* 

gledati - gledah / gledaše / gledaše / gledaše / gledasmo / gledaste / gledahu . ( perhaps you will ask why here doesnt guilt d+ja>đa , right? Well because the stem is not gled- but gleda- (oni gledaju) and like already said if the stem already ends on -a it melts with the infix -a- 

And finaly verbs on *-nu*-->
"sag*nu*ti (se)"- there is no verbs with sufix -*nu* forming imperfekt because -*nu* indicates only one time or shortly executed action therefore its perfective verb and has no imperfect, only aorist.
The perfective verb would be "saginjati (se) - oni saginju (se)" therefore "saginjah (se)" where this n is palatalized and becomes nj.

"pa*sti*"- has also no imperfect because it is perfective verb but padati has. 

I hope I could help you. If you have more questions, just ask!


----------



## WannaBeMe

Psi-Lord said:


> An example…
> 
> I’d figured out (somehow) that I could use the truncated present stem of _nositi_ (_nos-_) and _videti_ (_vid-_) to form the imperfect, and that the imperfect endings shifted the stem-final consonants from _-s-_ and _-d-_ to _-š-_ and _-đ-_, respectively:
> 
> _nošah, nošaše, nošaše, nošasmo, nošaste, nošahu_
> 
> _viđah, viđaše, viđaše, viđasmo, viđaste, viđahu_


 
Nope and nope this is not correct at all. Nositi and vidjeti has no imperfect, it is imperfect from nosati and vidjati which are imperfective infinitives and nositi, vidjeti are perfective.

Aaaaaaaand it is nosah, nosaše, nosaše , nosasmo, nosaste, nosahu because infinitive : nosati / 3rd plural present: oni nosaju therefore the imperfect stem is *nosa* plus endings *ah = nosah ( a *and *a* melt to *a)*


----------



## sokol

Psi-Lord said:


> However, I’ve also been taught that it’s interesting to think of a third stem of sorts as well, the truncated present stem, which would be the present stem minus its final vowel (that is, if the present stem of _govoriti_ is _govori-_, then its truncated stem is _govor-_).



What you describe here is the "thematic vowel" - which is sometimes used in modern grammars but mostly in diachronic works which (I think) is not really what you are about here. 

I can't give any help with imperfect itself, but as for this "thematic vowel": it has been defined to explain peculiarities in derivation and conjugation but is only relevant from a historical point of view; as you are interested in rules of thumb how to form imperfect thematic vowel that's not really interesting here. Historical linguistics is not a good method for remembering syntactic paradigms*)  - you will find it easier to learn synchronic descriptions.

*) Except if you want to delve deeper into that matter. And as for thematic vowel, a short example: "dela-" would be the stem plus thematic vowel, "del-" the stem without it (thematic vowel = "a") which is only an "incomplete" stem because thematic vowels are _part _of the stem. The reason for separating the stem like that is that an infix may be put between "short" stem and thematic vowel.


----------



## phosphore

WannaBeMe said:


> Nope and nope this is not correct at all. Nositi and vidjeti has no imperfect, it is imperfect from nosati and vidjati which are imperfective infinitives and nositi, vidjeti are perfective.
> 
> Aaaaaaaand it is nosah, nosaše, nosaše , nosasmo, nosaste, nosahu because infinitive : nosati / 3rd plural present: oni nosaju therefore the imperfect stem is *nosa* plus endings *ah = nosah ( a *and *a* melt to *a)*


 
You are wrong; nositi _is_ an imperfective verb.

nositi: nöšāh, nöšāše, nöšāše, nöšāsmo, nöšāste, nöšāhu
nosati: nósāh, nósāše, nósāše, nósāsmo, nósāste, nósāhu

On the other hand, videti _is_ a perfective verb, but, from theoretical point of view, it does have imperfect tense forms.


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> You are wrong; nositi _is_ an imperfective verb.
> 
> nositi: nöšāh, nöšāše, nöšāše, nöšāsmo, nöšāste, nöšāhu
> nosati: nósāh, nósāše, nósāše, nósāsmo, nósāste, nósāhu
> 
> On the other hand, videti _is_ a perfective verb, but, from theoretical point of view, it does have imperfect tense forms.


 
Yes you are right perfective is (some prefix)-nijeti. Sorry I was blind.
But I still think that viđah is imperfect from viđati and not from vidjeti. It seems to me more logicly. And theoreticly no perfective verb can form imperfect. If you think it can please show me some example so I could change my oppinion.


----------



## phosphore

WannaBeMe said:


> Yes you are right perfective is (some prefix)-nijeti. Sorry I was blind.
> But I still think that viđah is imperfect from viđati and not from vidjeti. It seems to me more logicly. And theoreticly no perfective verb can form imperfect. If you think it can please show me some example so I could change my oppinion.


 
I am not sure now, I agree it does not really seem logical but I know all verbs had the imperfect tense forms in the past; that is why I said it could still be possible from some theoretical point of view.

However, it does not matter here, since I remembered _videti_ is both perfective and imperfective; _(ja)_ _vidim_ is an imperfective form, isn't it?


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> I am not sure now, I agree it does not really seem logical but I know all verbs had the imperfect tense forms in the past; that is why I said it could still be possible from some theoretical point of view.
> 
> However, it does not matter here, since I remembered _videti_ is both perfective and imperfective; _(ja)_ _vidim_ is an imperfective form, isn't it?


 
Well ja vidim is gramaticly a perfective form but the nature of this doing is such,thus constantly, it feels only like an imperfecive form but in reality it isnt. The same case with čuti (slušati) and misliti (razmišljati) and with all other verbs of sense. Its confusing a little bit.

An example: Ja sam ga video (only once).
Ja sam ga viđao (constantly).
But peaple also say Video sam ga više puta instead of viđao sam ga više puta. I dont know if its actualy wrong but, you know, the language is alive and changing all the time. 

So if we follow the rools it is a perfective verb but if we follow feeling and sence it is imperfective form.


----------



## phosphore

It is not; it seems you are not aware of the category of both perfective and imperfective verbs - _dvovidski glagoli_ (these are, for example, videti, čuti, doručkovati, ručati, večerati, and so on).

If you are concerned about why does _viđati_ exist, if _videti _already is imperfective, there is a difference in meaning between these two: _videti_ being a durative verb or expressing an action in progress (apart from being a perfective verb, too) and _viđati_ being an iterative verb, expressing a repeated action.


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> It is not; it seems you are not aware of the category of both perfective and imperfective verbs - _dvovidski glagoli_ (these are, for example, videti, čuti, doručkovati, ručati, večerati, and so on).
> 
> If you are concerned about why does _viđati_ exist, if _videti _already is imperfective, there is a difference in meaning between these two: _videti_ being a durative verb or expressing an action in progress (apart from being a perfective verb, too) and _viđati_ being an iterative verb, expressing a repeated action.


 
Yes , yes but what I wanted to say, there is tendention (originally it was a rool) to form an imerfective verb by changing the infix -i- or -je (jat)-of an perfective verb to -ja- and originally vid*je*ti (vid*ja*ti) looks like a perfective verb and has its form but it has the meaning of an imperfective verb. Thats what I wanted to say with it is gramaticly perfective but in reality not.

um*i*ti - umivati < um*ija*ti
ub*i*ti - ub*ija*ti
spreč*i*ti -sprečavati < spreč*aja*ti
primal - vid*i*ti > vid_*ja*_ti 

But of course you are completely right at all your statements.


----------



## Psi-Lord

I’ll definitely have to move back and re-read the whole thread more carefully, because I was doing so and got the feeling that I no longer understand some minor (or major) points that I thought were clear. I’ll address that later, however, when I have time to sit and organise my thoughts. 

Meanwhile, though, I just wanted to mention something about the verbs. My main source is Morton Benson (both English to Serbo-Croatian and vice-versa). It does indeed give both _nosati_ and _nositi_ as imperfective, _videti_ as both perfective and imperfective (that is, biaspectual), and _viđati_ as the iterative (as phosphore mentioned) imperfective of _videti_. It also gives _čuti_ аs biaspectual, and _militi_ as imperfective. The Croatian dictionary at HJP seems to agree on those, too.


----------



## phosphore

Psi-Lord said:


> Meanwhile, though, I just wanted to mention something about the verbs. My main source is Morton Benson (both English to Serbo-Croatian and vice-versa). It does indeed give both _nosati_ and _nositi_ as imperfective, _videti_ as both perfective and imperfective (that is, biaspectual), and _viđati_ as the iterative (as phosphore mentioned) imperfective of _videti_. It also gives _čuti_ аs biaspectual, and _militi_ as imperfective. The Croatian dictionary at HJP seems to agree on those, too.


 
I am not sure what _militi_ could mean (there is an expression _ne mili mi se_ though), but for other verbs your sources are perfectly right. WannaBeMe is just giving some new tendencies in Serbian linguistic theory


----------



## Duya

WannaBeMe said:


> um*i*ti - umivati < um*ija*ti
> spreč*i*ti -sprečavati < spreč*aja*ti



Frankly, I've never heard those. I can imagine that they exist, but their usage must be fairly localized. Sounds like eastern or southern Serbia to me?


----------



## Psi-Lord

phosphore said:


> I am not sure what _militi_ could mean (there is an expression _ne mili mi se_ though), […]


Morton Benson gives it two meanings: the first, as a transitive verb, meaning ‘to make pleasant’ (but there are no usage examples), and the second is the one you mention, as the impersonal _(ne) milite se_ – the usage example being _ne mili mu se da radi_.


----------



## WannaBeMe

Duya said:


> Frankly, I've never heard those. I can imagine that they exist, but their usage must be fairly localized. Sounds like eastern or southern Serbia to me?


Umivati and spečavati are comletely normal for me (Krajišnik ). Maybe it sounds strange to you because you use infiniteve less often than me.

But if you think of the forms umijati i spečajati , that are the primeval forms. Intervocalic -j- becomes -v- by many verbs. But today we use normaly umi-ti / umi-va-ti
spreči-ti /spreča-va-ti

Let me show you this paradigm and SORRY if I am borring but perhaps someone is or will be interested in it.

_rado-va_-ti that became from _radojati_ has present _radujem_ und not _raduvem_. So I thought only that the verb videti also had such procedure and its imperfective form was vidjati but it has moved to a iteratve verb later. 
So I wanted to say that long time ago, there was a gramatic rool about making imperfective verbs and stems and even imperfective tense by ading sufix -JA- on the stem.

umi-ti 
Present=
umi-jem
umi-ješ
umi-je
umi-jemo
umi-jete
umi-ju;

And aorist was built by this stem (sigmatic aorist)

umi-h <---umi-s-u
umi <-----umi-s ( -s at the end of a word always gets lost in already at preslavic period)
umi <-----umi-st (t- on the end gets lost and then also -s- but there are one _bystь_ in churchslavonic that proves this)
umismo <--umi-s-mos
umiste <---umi-s-te
umiše <----umi-s-ent

-s- _intervocalic -s- became -h- and ending -u became ь and gets lost_
_-s- or -t-_ at the end of a word always gets lost already at preslavic period
-en- becomes nasal -e- and later in Serbian it becomes -e-

And now Imerfective Stem by sufix -ja

umi-va-ti <---umi-ja-ti

Imperfect :

umi-va-h <-----umi-ja-s-u
umi-va-še <----umi-ja-š-e
umi-va-še <----umi-ja-š-e
umi-va-smo <---umi-ja-s-mos
umi-va-ste <----umi-ja-s-te
umi-va-hu <----umi-ja-s-unt

-j--s- intervocalic -j- becomes -v- and intervocalic -s- becomes -h-
-s-t at the end of a word always gets lost already at preslavic period
-un- becomes nasal -u- and later in Serbian it becomes -u-

The same thing is happening with vide-ti and vid-ja-ti 
_vidi-m_ and _vid-ja-m_ _vide-h_ and _vid-ja-h_ but today vidjati moved its meaning from imperfective veb to a iterative but in imperfect the primary meaning stayed vidjah, vidjaše ...*because it is imposible to form Imperfect tense from a perfective stem. *

The whole Imerfect stuffs seems to be difficult for everybody but it isnt if you know the evolutional way of it, if you know what I mean. The whole perfective-imperfective system was built on this sufix -*ja*- (exeption are some verbs that form perfective stems a prefix but logicaly there were also analog stems but they are disappeared with the time or are present in some other meaning) and the past tenses aorist and imperfect are formed from this stems and the sufix -*s*- and personal endings.


----------



## phosphore

Psi-Lord said:


> Morton Benson gives it two meanings: the first, as a transitive verb, meaning ‘to make pleasant’ (but there are no usage examples), and the second is the one you mention, as the impersonal _(ne) milite se_ – the usage example being _ne mili mu se da radi_.


 


That is what I thought, but I have never heard someone using that verb.




WannaBeMe said:


> umi-h <---umi-s-u
> umi <-----umi-s ( -s at the end of a word always gets lost in already at preslavic period)
> umi <-----umi-st (t- on the end gets lost and then also -s- but there are one _bystь_ in churchslavonic that proves this)
> umismo <--umi-s-mos
> umiste <---umi-s-te
> umiše <----umi-s-ent
> 
> -s- _intervocalic -s- became -h- and ending -u became ь and gets lost_
> _-s- or -t-_ at the end of a word always gets lost already at preslavic period
> -en- becomes nasal -e- and later in Serbian it becomes -e-
> 
> And now Imerfective Stem by sufix -ja
> 
> umi-va-ti <---umi-ja-ti
> 
> Imperfect :
> 
> umi-va-h <-----umi-ja-s-u
> umi-va-še <----umi-ja-š-e
> umi-va-še <----umi-ja-š-e
> umi-va-smo <---umi-ja-s-mos
> umi-va-ste <----umi-ja-s-te
> umi-va-hu <----umi-ja-s-unt
> 
> -j--s- intervocalic -j- becomes -v- and intervocalic -s- becomes -h-
> -s-t at the end of a word always gets lost already at preslavic period
> -un- becomes nasal -u- and later in Serbian it becomes -u-


 


This part is very interesting, where did you get it from?




WannaBeMe said:


> The same thing is happening with vide-ti and vid-ja-ti
> _vidi-m_ and _vid-ja-m_ _vide-h_ and _vid-ja-h_ but today vidjati moved its meaning from imperfective veb to a iterative but in imperfect the primary meaning stayed vidjah, vidjaše ...*because it is imposible to form Imperfect tense from a perfective stem. *
> 
> The whole Imerfect stuffs seems to be difficult for everybody but it isnt if you know the evolutional way of it, if you know what I mean. The whole perfective-imperfective system was built on this sufix -*ja*- (exeption are some verbs that form perfective stems a prefix but logicaly there were also analog stems but they are disappeared with the time or are present in some other meaning) and the past tenses aorist and imperfect are formed from this stems and the sufix -*s*- and personal endings.


 


I am not sure what you want to say since there is no doubt that _videti_ is today both perfective and imperfective verb, and that _viđah_ with the short falling accent is its imperfect tense form.


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> That is what I thought, but I have never heard someone using that verb.
> 
> To me it seems very normal but I would say it is used more in Montenegro, Hercegovina and Krajina. Its a bit logicly , who says most of time "ne mili mi se radit' "  I know that in middle of Bosnia people says "Mrsko mi je" which I would never use. I think you would say rather (so do I ) " Ne da mi se".
> 
> 
> 
> This part is very interesting, where did you get it from?
> 
> I didnt get it, I found it by myself. I use to occupy myself with studing Oldchurchslavonic and its prestadium and then to compare it with other languages and theirs prestadiums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you want to say since there is no doubt that _videti_ is today both perfective and imperfective verb, and that _viđah_ with the short falling accent is its imperfect tense form.
> 
> There is doubt. I dont care what some books say. I say what I feel about my language. And I feel videti this way:
> 
> _videti_ cant have a perfective meaning it has a _durative_ meaning (it is process, duration) BUT its form , its stem behaves like perfective stem in its conjugations and forming of tenses.
> Now, as every other perfective verb has its imperfective pair so videti must also have it because itself is behaving like an perfective verb. So, that other pair is _vidjati._ Its stem is imperfective and it forms tenses and conjugates like an imperfective-stem verb but since the meaning of _videti_ is already _durative_ so the meaning of _vidjati_ is logical way _iterative_.
> And I think that this people who wrote this books from which you learnt it were confused by the meaning of _videti_ and they said its both perfective and imperfective but it cant be. Because their theory is uncomplete. How can you explain then existing of vidjati and where is its perfective pair if itself is imperfective? But so as I explained it, it seems all to be complete. There is nothing to add or to to dissclaim. And I say it was and still is an axiom of forming aspects in Slavic languages. However some phonetic changes has happened so the recognizing of that axiom is a bit harder today but it is still there.
> 
> I dont know how I can explain it to you the better way. As summury:
> 
> *vid-e-ti____* vs._____ *vid-ja-ti*
> perfective----------------------imperfective stem, form
> durative -----------------------iterative meaning
> 
> vid-i-m-------------------------vid-ja-m present
> vid-e-h--------------------------vid-ja-h past tenses (aurist - imperfect)
> 
> 
> I dont know how do you see my statment but for me it is more understandable than this from some books which is confusing and cant explain the complicity of the aspect or imperfect and aorist very well.


----------



## phosphore

Books have nothing to do with it; "vidim jako dobro" means "I see very well" and you can't say it otherwise, using the verb "viđati". That is why I said there was no doubt about it.

Where could I find all that about the verbal endings and their evolution? That is the part I am interested in.



Speaking of "ne mili mi se", I usually say "mrzi me" (for example, "mrze me da ustanem") though the meaning is slightly different.


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> Books have nothing to do with it; "vidim jako dobro" means "I see very well" and you can't say it otherwise, using the verb "viđati". That is why I said there was no doubt about it.
> 
> Where could I find all that about the verbal endings and their evolution? That is the part I am interested in.


 
I am sorry I dont go to any university, I am still at gymnasium and all I have is a Bible in Curchslavonic (both testaments) and internet and a lot of gnowleges about Slavic , Teutonic and Romanic languages. I have studied it by myself and I can share with you all Ive found from the Bible if you want but I cant tell you any name of a book which tells something about it. Well perhaps when I write it by myself hehe. Just surch on google, perhaps you have luck to find sth about it.
Pozz


----------



## phosphore

OK. It means you know all that really good, since you don't look it up in any book before posting. Thank you anyway


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> OK. It means you know all that really good, since you don't look it up in any book before posting. Thank you anyway


 
Yes all I know I have it only in my head. I use only one book by posting and its English dictionary 
Nema na čemu.


----------

