# Rules of forming Verbal Adverbs



## wonlon

I look over several grammar books on the topic of forming verbal adverbs. The imperfective ones are simpler. But I saw different versions for the perfective ones. Here is one version:

Imperfective:

1. Take the 3rd personal plural of the impf. verb
2. Remove the last 2 letters
3. Add *-а *(after ж, ш*, ч, щ).  -я *(after other letters)

Remarks.
i. for -ся verbs, ся is changed to *сь* (after taking steps 1, 2, 3.)
ii. for -авать verbs, just remove -ть and add *-я*.


Perfective:
1. Masculine past tense ending in -л, remove the - л and add *-в(-вши) *(the ending -вши is obsolete)
2. Masculine past tense ending in other consonants, add *-ши*.
3. Verbs ending in -ся have *-вшись*.

3. for infinitive ending in -йти, change -йти into -шедши.

4. Infinitive ending in -сти plus masculine past tense ending in -ёл, retain the -д and -т of the stem,
e.g. привести - привед-ут > приведши
e.g. подмести - подмут-ут > подметши

5. Verbs ending -сти, -йти. have another way of forming verbal adverbs: remove the 3rd personal plural ending and add -я:
принести - принесут > принеся
прийти - придут > придя
найти - найдут > найдя

Some other verb endings are also like this:
прочесть - прочт-ут > прочтя
учесть - учт-ут > учтя
ошибиться - ошиб-ятся > ошиобясь

6. Some other verbs have 2 forms of verbal adverbs:
принести - принёсши / принеся
прообрести - приобрестши / приобрестя
запереть - заперши / заперев
......
(the -а/-я ending is obsolete)

I am quite confused about the rules of forming the _perfective _verbal adverbs. The basic rules should be 1, 2, 3 stated above. But the exceptions are complicated. It looks like -йти, -сти, -зти verbs have two forms of verbal adverbs. But it looks like some like прочесть must end in -я.
The books seem not having been able to present the rules straight forward and simple enough. So what really are the rules?


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> I am quite confused about the rules of forming the _perfective _verbal adverbs. The basic rules should be 1, 2, 3 stated above. But the exceptions are complicated. It looks like -йти, -сти, -зти verbs have two forms of verbal adverbs. But it looks like some like прочесть must end in -я.


Forms on -ши are obsolete, so you will hardly ever hear them. Приведя, придя, заперев, подметя - are the only forms in active use.
So in fact it's rather simple.



> 6. Some other verbs have 2 forms of verbal adverbs:
> принести - принёсши / принеся
> приобрести - приобрестши / приобрестя
> запереть - заперши / заперев
> ......
> (the -а/-я ending is obsolete)


No, vice versa - the -а/-я ending is modern. As well as заперев (unlike -ши as in заперши).


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> Forms on -ши are obsolete, so you will hardly ever hear them. Приведя, придя, заперев, подметя - are the only forms in active use.
> So in fact it's rather simple.
> 
> 
> No, vice versa - the -а/-я ending is modern. As well as заперев (unlike -ши as in заперши).



So would you state simply the rules of forming perfective VAs?


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> So would you state simply the rules of forming perfective VAs?


But you already have got them quite well formulated. With the only correction for -ши. 
Yes, it looks a bit complicated or "artificial", but I'm afraid it is not possible to formulate them in a simplier way. But I think that on some level of knowing the language, one will be able to form them intuitevely, without "calculating" like remove this, add that, and all.


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> But you already have got them quite well formulated. With the only correction for -ши.
> Yes, it looks a bit complicated or "artificial", but I'm afraid it is not possible to formulate them in a simplier way. But I think that on some level of knowing the language, one will be able to form them intuitevely, without "calculating" like remove this, add that, and all.



It will take years for my intuition to develop. I try not to pursue perfectionism, but so far for verbal adverbs (VAs), I still haven't drawn a useful version of rules.

_The New Penguin Russian Course_ presents perfective VA in this way:

1. Verbs ending with -ть, replace the -ть with -в.
2. For non-ть ending verbs, form the VA like imperfective VA - replace the 3rd person plural ending with -я.
3. For reflexive verbs, use the ending -вшись.

4. Non-ть verbs (which are not verbs of motion) can also form VAs by adding -ши to the masculine past tense, e.g. унёсши, лё*г*ши. (<typo before)
5. For verbs based on -йти, they have the ending -шедши.
6. Some writers use the way of forming imperfecive VAs to form perfective VAs, so you may see увидя instead of ув*и*дев. (<typo before)

This version presents the rules in a _quite _different approach.

So is there a set of _standard _rules? I get tired of those linguists' "*can also* form like this"s.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> 1. Verbs ending with -ть, replace the -ть with -в.
> 
> 2. For non-ть ending verbs, form the VA like imperfective VA - replace the 3rd person plural ending with -я.
> 
> 3. For reflexive verbs, use the ending -вшись.:/
> Not always:
> 3.1 Sometimes it is -шись, not -вшись:  улечься - улёгшись, обжечься - обжёгшись, уберечься - уберёгшись.
> I think we can formulate it as *-шись for infinitives on - ечься.*
> 3.2. There is at least one exception - derivatives of идти: прийтись - придясь, пройтись - пройдясь.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Non-ть verbs (which are not verbs of motion) can also form VAs by adding -ши to the masculine past tense, e.g. унёсши, лёши.
> But these forms are obsolete.
> And there is no word лёши. Maybe they mean лёгши?
> 
> 
> 5. For verbs based on -йти, they have the ending -шедши.
> But these forms are obsolete. Modern forms are уйдя, придя, отойдя...
> 
> 6. Some writers use the way of forming imperfecive VAs to form perfective VAs, so you may see увидя instead of увидев.





> So is there a set of standard rules?


I don't think so. Russian is natural language, it is not artificial, what standard then can be applied? We can only create more or less convinient description of the current state of the language.
I think above set with my remarks is more or less full, but maybe somebody else will complete it.


----------



## Explorer41

wonlon said:


> So is there a set of _standard _rules? I get tired of those linguists' "*can also* form like this"s.


Whichever set of rules you will use, you will get exceptions. It's an actual complexity of the language, not an artificial one. In the set you presented now, right away I see the exception with "упасть" - "упав", not "упасв". I see no exceptions for now in the rules you presented at first (except for the faults pointed by Maroseika), but I believe they may exist. Some verbs don't have a verbal adverb at all (for example, I fail to make one for the verb "слезть"). I'm not even sure all verbs have a verbal adverb.

May I give you a suggestion? A very friendly one, of course 

Read, read and read  . Just read Russian, you will recognize verbal adverbs and all the other stuff in texts you'd like to read, and you will get to know how to use them. And speak (or write). I see no other way...

EDIT: by the way, I'd rather say "ошибутся", not "ошибятся". By analogy with "убьются". Most likely it's because the accent falls in the ending of the third person plural form.
EDIT: oh, of course Maroseika is right! There's nothing wrong with "слезши". Well, it only proves that the matter you want to overpower sometimes is hard even for natives.

By the way, just remembered yet another exception: "искать" => "ища" (not "иская").


----------



## Maroseika

Explorer41 said:


> right away I see the exception with "упасть" - "упав", not "упасв".


Also украсть - украв, закласть - заклав, so, a supplement to rule 1:
1.1. Verbs ending with -cть, replace the -cть with -в (actually, these are Perfective derivatives of only 3 (?) verbs: красть, пасть, класть).




> Some verbs don't have a verbal adverb at all (for example, I fail to make one for the verb "слезть").


Why not слезши?



> Read, read and read


Agree. This is what can develop the learner's intuition, wants he or won't.


----------



## ahvalj

wonlon said:


> So is there a set of _standard _rules? I get tired of those linguists' "*can also* form like this"s.


Globally speaking, of course there is not. Even those you were citing are not rules but rather clues for students of the language: both these forms are very ancient, existing since the Indo-European times, for some 5 thousand years, and historically all that developed in a different way. From the practical point of view, however, there is an overwhelming massive of regular verbs (say, 98%), which form, e. g., verbal adverbs in a predictable way, and a small group of less regular verbs (say, 2%) where the rules are more particular. Realizing that you know already how to form both verbal adverbs in 98% of verbs is psychologically more satisfying than trying to memorize all the peculiarities.


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> Forms on -ши are obsolete, so you will hardly ever hear them.


The forms on «-ши» are still in use, e. g., when a particular stylistic effect is to be achieved. Let's look at the recent (end of 2011) _opus magnum_ by Александр Бушков «Чёртова мельница» I have read a couple of days ago. Bushkov is probably not the new Leo Tolstoy, but his language is pretty developed. So: 
«взявши бразды»
«проделавши это лишь мысленно»
«понявши в конце концов»
«вернувши Батшеву под хозяйскую руку»
«привыкнувши считать»
«ставши совершеннолетним»
«угодивши на медленный танец»
«взявши кавалера за руку»
«надевши на голову первую свою корону из нынешнего множества»
«узнавши о смерти барона»
«решивши брать быка за рога»
«одиннадцать лет назад занявши свой нынешний пост»
«осторожно забравши его в пасть вместе с оборванными травинками»
«вставши на колени у самой воды»
«хвост поджавши».


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> The forms on «-ши» are still in use, e. g., when a particular stylistic effect is to be achieved.


Sure. This is exactly like obsolete words are mostly used - in colloquial speech and for "a particular stylistic effect". However I think you will agree that these words are bookish, meaning mostly used in the books, so one really will hardly hear them in common oral speech.


----------



## wonlon

Explorer41 said:


> Whichever set of rules you will use, you will get exceptions. It's an actual complexity of the language, not an artificial one. In the set you presented now, right away I see the exception with "упасть" - "упав", not "упасв". I see no exceptions for now in the rules you presented at first (except for the faults pointed by Maroseika), but I believe they may exist. Some verbs don't have a verbal adverb at all (for example, I fail to make one for the verb "слезть"). I'm not even sure all verbs have a verbal adverb.
> 
> May I give you a suggestion? A very friendly one, of course
> 
> Read, read and read  . Just read Russian, you will recognize verbal adverbs and all the other stuff in texts you'd like to read, and you will get to know how to use them. And speak (or write). I see no other way...
> 
> EDIT: by the way, I'd rather say "ошибутся", not "ошибятся". By analogy with "убьются". Most likely it's because the accent falls in the ending of the third person plural form.
> EDIT: oh, of course Maroseika is right! There's nothing wrong with "слезши". Well, it only proves that the matter you want to overpower sometimes is hard even for natives.
> 
> By the way, just remembered yet another exception: "искать" => "ища" (not "иская").



I got an explanation from Terence Wade''s Comprehensive Russian Grammar, it says that the infinitive ending -сть (not -ть) should be removed, so упасть > упав.
But those -сть verbs with д-stems are exceptions, they form pf.-VA like impf.-VA e.g.
пройд-ут пройд-я 
сойд-ут сойд-я

If I just knew the Penguin version, I will come up with (from Rule 2) упадя and (from Rule 4 (you see the words "can also")) упаши.

Now it looks like perfective VA is really complicated. Different books have very similar explanation on other topics, but for VA they are very different. Words like "But this may do like this....." flood here and there.
I will say now that I would need to learn the pf.-VA each time I encounter a word. f I am stubborn enough, I will check dictionary for every VA I use, but this may kill my enthusiasm.

But the problem is I can find no dictionary except the small _Cornell Dictionary Tree_ which mentions упасть > упав.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> But those -сть verbs with д-stems are exceptions, they form pf.-VA like impf.-VA e.g.
> пройд-ут пройд-я
> сойд-ут сойд-я
> 
> I will say now that I would need to learn the pf.-VA each time I encounter a word. f I am stubborn enough, I will check dictionary for every VA I use, but this may kill my enthusiasm.



Don't be so pessimistic. In fact it is much easier than might seem. "Д-stems" verbs are all derivatives of only one verb - идти, the rule about -сть verbs is already known to you, -ши/-вши VA should be only recognisable in the books and you may safely avoid them in oral speech and correspondence with your friends. So what's else? Nothing, I guess. No need to check each and every verb in the dictionary.


----------



## morzh

wonlon said:


> I got an explanation from Terence Wade''s Comprehensive Russian Grammar, it says that the infinitive ending -сть (not -ть) should be removed, so упасть > упав.
> But those -сть verbs with д-stems are exceptions, they form pf.-VA like impf.-VA e.g.
> пройд-ут пройд-я
> сойд-ут сойд-я
> 
> If I just knew the Penguin version, I will come up with (from Rule 2) упадя and (from Rule 4 (you see the words "can also")) упаши.
> 
> Now it looks like perfective VA is really complicated. Different books have very similar explanation on other topics, but for VA they are very different. Words like "But this may do like this....." flood here and there.
> I will say now that I would need to learn the pf.-VA each time I encounter a word. f I am stubborn enough, I will check dictionary for every VA I use, but this may kill my enthusiasm.
> 
> But the problem is I can find no dictionary except the small _Cornell Dictionary Tree_ which mentions упасть > упав.
> 
> And here comes
> Большой толковый словарь
> * УПАСТЬ,* упаду, упадёшь; упал, -ла, -ло; упавший и_ (устар.)_ упадший; св.
> 
> Then even dictionaries have different answers.
> 
> Oh......




The adverbial participle formed from "*упасть" - "упав"/"упавши*" (the latter is more archaic).

Упав на пол, чашка разбилась - having fallen on the floor, the cup broke.
Споткнувшись и упавши на тротуар, ребенок заголосил - having stumbled and fallen onto the sidewalk, the child started crying.

From "падать" - "падая".
Светилась, падая, ракета - a flare was burning while falling.


----------



## wonlon

morzh said:


> The adverbial participle formed from "*упасть" - "упав"/"упавши*" (the latter is more archaic).
> 
> Упав на пол, чашка разбилась - having fallen on the floor, the cup broke.
> Споткнувшись и упавши на тротуар, ребенок заголосил - having stumbled and fallen onto the sidewalk, the child started crying.
> 
> From "падать" - "падая".
> Светилась, падая, ракета - a flare was burning while falling.



I see, participle, this will be my next study topic.


----------



## morzh

wonlon said:


> I see, participle, this will be my next study topic.



Verbal Adverbs and Adverbial Participles in Russian are the same.


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> Don't be so pessimistic. In fact it is much easier than might seem. "Д-stems" verbs are all derivatives of only one verb - идти, the rule about -сть verbs is already known to you, -ши/-вши VA should be only recognisable in the books and you may safely avoid them in oral speech and correspondence with your friends. So what's else? Nothing, I guess. No need to check each and every verb in the dictionary.



I just want to learn things thoroughly, but it seems not easy to kill this topic once and all.
Maybe when I learn Russian longer, I will see that it is easy.


----------



## morzh

Maroseika said:


> Don't be so pessimistic. In fact it is much  easier than might seem. "Д-stems" verbs are all derivatives of only one  verb - идти, the rule about -сть verbs is already known to you, -ши/-вши  VA should be only recognisable in the books and you may safely avoid  them in oral speech and correspondence with your friends. So what's  else? Nothing, I guess. No need to check each and every verb in the  dictionary.






Especially when you read something like "Поздравляю вас, гражданин, *соврамши*".


----------



## bibax

> So is there a set of standard rules? I get tired of those linguists' "can also form like this"s.





> Globally speaking, of course there is not. Even those you were citing are not rules but rather clues for students of the language: both these forms are very ancient, existing since the Indo-European times, for some 5 thousand years, and historically all that developed in a different way.


In Czech we have a simple "ancient" rule how to create the past transgressive (= perfective VA):

1. find *the infinitive stem* of the given verb;

2. if the infinitive stem ends with a vowel, add *-v, -vši, -vše* (according to gender and number), otherwise add *0, -ši, -še*.

Examples:
zakonči-ti (окончить), *zakonči*-l: zakončiv, zakončivši, zakončivše;
uděla-ti (сделать), *uděla*-l: udělav, udělavši, udělavše;

ukrás-ti (украсть) < *-krad-ti, *ukrad*-l: ukrad, ukradši, ukradše;
uplés-ti (сплести) < *-plet-ti, *uplet*-l : uplet, upletši, upletše;

unés-ti (унести), *unes*-l: unes, unesši, unesše;
vyléz-ti (вылезть), *vylez*-l: vylez, vylezši, vylezše;

pomo-ci (помочь) < *-mog-ti, *pomoh*-l: pomoh, pomohši, pomohše;
napé-ci (напечь) < *-pek-ti, *napek*-l: napek, napekši, napekše;

It seems that Russian has somewhat corrupted the simplicity of the original rule.

The "rules" presented in this thread are rather random and poorly arranged. I should start with explanation what are the present and infinitive stems and how to create them.


----------



## Syline

wonlon said:


> But those -сть verbs with д-stems are exceptions, they form pf.-VA like impf.-VA e.g.
> пройд-ут пройд-я
> сойд-ут сойд-я


You're mistaken here. These are not -сть verbs, but -йти ones: "сойдут" from "сойти", "пройдут" from "пройти". And they fit quite well into the rule written in your first post: 
_5. Verbs ending -сти, -йти. have another way of forming verbal adverbs: remove the 3rd personal plural ending and add -я:
 принести - принесут > принеся
 прийти - придут > придя
 найти - найдут > найдя_


----------



## Maroseika

morzh said:


> Especially when you read something like "Поздравляю вас, гражданин, *соврамши*".



I always thought it's a short participle (and therefore without the second comma).


----------



## Explorer41

And I always thought the opposite (and Bulgakov _has_ the comma).


----------



## wonlon

morzh said:


> Especially when you read something like "Поздравляю вас, гражданин, *соврамши*".



What does it mean?


----------



## Explorer41

wonlon said:


> What does it mean?


"Congratulations! You have lied!"
The form "соврамши" is very colloquial; the only place where I met it was the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov "Master and Margarita". It looks like an incorrect variant of "совравши", where "в" was substituted with "м" for ease of pronounciation.


----------



## Maroseika

Explorer41 said:


> "Congratulations! You have lied!"
> The form "соврамши" is very colloquial; the only place where I met it was the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov "Master and Margarita". It looks like an incorrect variant of "совравши", where "в" was substituted with "м" for ease of pronounciation.



Cf. не спамши, не жрамши. Of course all such forms are grammatically wrong and can be used only jokingly.



> And I always thought the opposite (and Bulgakov has the comma).


It's always great to know something new. Thanks.


----------



## Saluton

Explorer41 said:


> "Congratulations! You have lied!"
> The form "соврамши" is very colloquial; the only place where I met it was the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov "Master and Margarita". It looks like an incorrect variant of "совравши", where "в" was substituted with "м" for ease of pronounciation.


Соврамши indeed is an adverbial participle that means "having lied," but I'd rather say "поздравляю, соврамши" is used in today's language as a sarcastic way of telling someone they are _mistaken_.


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, there is a mistake in the original assumption — unfortunately, very characteristic of foreign manuals — in Russian, there is no difference in forming imperfective vs. perfective verbal adverbs: the difference exists between present and past adverbs, and while present adverbs can be only imperfective, past ones can be both imperfective and perfective. In fact, all this system is parallel to the participles and has the same origin:
приводить — приводя — приводящий
приводить — приводив/приводивши — приводивший
привести — приведя (secondarily)/(приведши, originally) — приведший

For the passive participles no special adverbial forms have developed, so «приводимый» and «приведённый» can be used in both senses. For reflexive verbs with the passive meaning, however, there is the full system:
приводиться — приводясь — приводящийся
приводиться — приводившись — приводившийся
привестись — приведясь (the rest two forms for this verb are obsolete).


----------



## ahvalj

bibax said:


> The "rules" presented in this thread are rather random and poorly arranged. I should start with explanation what are the present and infinitive stems and how to create them.


That's a fashion in many foreign manuals: their authors apparently feel more didactic to avoid introducing the concept of two stems and explain all forms as if they were derived from the infinitive. Most probably this is based on the а- and е-verbs, where, due to the peculiarities of the Russian orthography, there is an illusion that «читает»/«умеет» is formed from «читать»/«уметь» by replacing the infinitive suffix «-ть» with the ending «-ет».


----------

