# невозможно + глаголы сов. и несов. вида



## odradek67

Здраствуйте!

Я знаю,что, вообще говоря,  "нельзя + св" = невозможно, а "нельзя + нсв = запрещено".
Какая разница между невозможно делать и невозможно сделать?
"Невозможно сделать" более конкретно?

Спасибо


----------



## Chilikun-Pilikun

Добрый день!
разница скорее в том, что "нельзя +св"  невозможно начало, окончание действия или его завершенность (нельзя спеть, закурить, сходить, сплавать)
тогда как "нельзя + нсв" = невозможно само действие (нельзя петь, курить, ходить, плавать etc. ). Это свойство можно использовать как запрещение, хотя чаще пишут "курение запрещено", "проход запрещен" , "купание запрещено" - т.е. используют существительное (gerund)


----------



## Rosett

odradek67 said:


> Я знаю,что, вообще говоря,  "нельзя + св" = невозможно, а "нельзя + нсв = запрещено".
> Какая разница между невозможно делать и невозможно сделать?
> "Невозможно сделать" более конкретно?


"Невозможно сделать" означает невозможность довести дело до конца, но не означает, что невозможно им заниматься или хотя бы начинать.
"Невозможно делать" означает невозможность (или, часто, бессмысленность) им заниматься.


----------



## Chilikun-Pilikun

"Невозможно делать" бессмысленность, невозможность (мешающие обстоятельства (под водой нельзя дышать без scuba)) или скорее даже запрет (на бензоколонке нельзя курить)


----------



## Vadim K

"Невозможно делать" - нет условий для того, чтобы это делать *постоянно*. Пример - "_Здесь невозможно ничего делать - постоянно стоит шум и гам_".

"Невозможно сделать" - нет условий для того, чтобы *закончить/завершить* то, что делаешь. Пример - "_Это невозможно сделать сейчас - у нас недостаточно денег, чтобы купить все необходимые материалы_".


----------



## HotIcyDonut

Impossible, with verb "to breathe":

Нельзя дышать под водой
Нельзя вздохнуть под водой

Impossible, with verb "to cross":

Нельзя перейти дорогу не по пешеходному переходу

Forbidden/Prohibited, with verb "to cross":

Нельзя переходить дорогу не по пешеходному переходу

Therefore:

Нельзя + глагол совершенного вида = impossible to ONLY
Нельзя + глагол несовершенного вида = impossible to or forbidden/prohibited to, dependibg on given context.


----------



## Lorenc

I'm piggybacking on this thread because I have a related doubt. 
My question is as follows.
Is it true that in fragments of the type 
невозможно было + infinitive
the verb always, or almost always, has perfective aspect?
For example:
невозможно было представить
невозможно было определить
невозможно было проверить
невозможно было организовать
невозможно было отразить

What about structures of the type невозможно было не + infinitive ?


----------



## HotIcyDonut

You can make plenty of examples with imperfective:

Стул был очень неудобным, настолько, что толком невозможно было сидеть на нём.

Насколько же это блюдо было противным на вкус, невозможно было есть!

Как же у него душно в комнате, давно не проветривал, почти невозможно было дышать, когда я там находился.

Structure with невозможно было не is entirely possible with both perfective and imperfective as well.

An example with a possible little nuance in meaning:

Проблема стала настолько большой, что её невозможно было не заметить (if I heard a sentence like this outside the context, on its own, I would assume by default that the problem has finally grown so big that it was noticed and can't be accidentally overlooked by negligence or mistake anymore).

Проблема стала настолько большой, что её невозможно было не замечать (by default, I would treat it like as if the speaker means the problem has already been known, but had probably been intentionally ignored or purposefully left to be dealt with later, before it has grown too significant to ignore, and it had to handled, resolved with no more delays or indifference).


----------



## Lorenc

HotIcyDonut said:


> You can make plenty of examples with imperfective:


Thanks!
Can I also ask something about the part in bold in the following passage:
Когда́ моему́ ста́ршему бра́ту бы́ло четы́рнадцать лет, он серьёзно увлека́лся лы́жами. Когда́ выпада́л снег, его́ *невозмо́жно бы́ло заста́вить сиде́ть до́ма*.

The question is why the imperfective form 'заставля́ть' is not correct here (true?). I'm not sure because, it seems to me, the process of forcing him to sit at home is extended in time.


----------



## Vovan

Lorenc said:


> The question is why the imperfective form 'заставля́ть' is not correct here (true?). I'm not sure because, it seems to me, the process of making him (=forcing him) to sit at home is extended in time.


Yes, but the focus here is on "когда выпадал снег" (~ 'every time the snow had fallen'), which is (subjectively) seen as _one particular situation_. And what really matters is _the result_ of one's actions in that situation (that is, the result of that 'making').

Constructions such as "невозможно (or: можно, нужно, etc.) было заставлять..." usually emphasize that there were (or: could/should have been) repeated attempts to make someone do something, often in a series of situations:
_Что делать, чтобы сотрудников не надо было заставлять обучаться?*_​_С ранних лет не получалось заставлять ребенка вытирать руки насухо после мытья._​​Also note that "невозможно (or: нельзя, недопустимо. etc.) было заставлять..." would often convey the lack of permisson or a moral right to force someone to do something (as it is imperfective forms of verbs that are more typical in prohibitions, moral maxims, and the like):
_К сожалению, я не успела его сфотографировать, т.к. невозможно было заставлять людей ждать. _​_Как можно было заставлять людей мириться? _("Как можно было заставить..." would more readily ask for possible ways of forcing that were or could/may have been used.)​​______​*All examples here are from the internet.​


----------



## Awwal12

Lorenc said:


> The question is why the imperfective form 'заставля́ть' is not correct here (true?).


Because they have different implications?  Only заставить necessarily presumes an actual success.


----------



## nizzebro

Lorenc said:


> The question is why the imperfective form 'заставля́ть' is not correct here (true?). I'm not sure because, it seems to me, the process of forcing him to sit at home is extended in time.


The imperfective is not something extended in time, it is something that is _a set of iterations._ Don't think of time scale at all; it is rather an English approach, not Russian.
You are mentioning something that took place each time it snowed. Whenever you use an imperfective, the mentioned thing is a bunch of iterations. In the case of 'невозможно заставлять' it results in some weird meaning as if either your initial goal was to do this action many times, repeatedly, as if you are a maniac  which comes every minute, or, progressively, as if you know in advance that it takes long time to force him to stay, and, all the time while it is snowing, you continue to force him again and again.

But, we say "каждый раз приходилось/нужно было _заставлять_" -here, these repetitions are legal, progression is the very sense - it took many phases each time and could even be unsuccessful each time. 
You might use the perfective this way -  "каждый раз приходилось сначала _заставить _его остаться дома, потом позвонить на работу, потом..." - now,  it is a single act each time - and, this is what perfective is about - a single unique and complete transition between two states.


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> The imperfective is not something extended in time, it is something that is _a set of iterations._


It may be either (as long as semantically applicable). I don't see any set of iterations in "дверь сейчас открывается", for instance. Ultimately i'd say the key definition of imperfectiveness is just the lack of perfectiveness.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> I don't see any set of iterations in "дверь сейчас открывается", for instance.


Why? I mean iterations not in a context of so called iterative aspect but in common sense, as cyclic phases.

The door is moving towards its open state, you are watching phases of this process and, at each moment,  you can see it advances a little more. We hardly can say that someone is knocking if there was a single knock; we need at least two of them_._

This is how I see the common principle:
Someone is writing a book right now - he or she is putting down words onto paper. It is an iterative process - each iteration has a meaningful part (a word appearing on paper) and a gap between these elements. If he or she is writing a book this week - again, there is a process of putting words - the only difference is that dividing gaps are of _mixed nature_: there are ordinary gaps plus those between sessions - but the language doesn't tell them apart (at this stage, English either). Now, let them just 'write books' - habitually,  being a writer - but, again, the only difference is that now the gaps are of all sorts - gaps between words, gaps between sessions, gaps between books. But, all these are writing-related gaps. Actually, each gap is the second half of phase, the same way as there is your left foot and your right stepping down while you are walking.


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> Why? I mean iterations not in a context of so called iterative aspect but in common sense, as cyclic phases.
> 
> The door is moving towards its open state, you are watching phases of this process and, at each moment, you can see it advances a little more


And what's cyclic about it?  



nizzebro said:


> We hardly can say that someone is knocking if there was a single knock; we need at least two of them_._


Knocking is different, being an inherently repetative activity, which is actually reflected in verbal morphology (note that its closest perfective counterpart is formed with the -ну- suffix, which specifically denotes singular fragments of  repetative activities).


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> And what's cyclic about it?


Hmm? The meaning, provided by the aspect. What is cyclic about walking, if you are not making circles? Let's forget about feet alternating, and take just 'moving'. It is cyclic because your 'delta X' is changing. Your location and surroundings are changing, but the verb itself does not tell _what they are exactly. _They are just new at each step, and it is what is repeated in this case, this is the iteration. The function x^2 tells that for each x, y will be x^2, and this is the fact which repeats itself - but the function does not care of the actual value of x.


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> It is cyclic because your 'delta X' is changing


Er... "Cyclic" basically means "containing positions or states which are repeated over and over again", isn't it?


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> Er... "Cyclic" basically means "containing positions or states which are repeated over and over again", isn't it?


Yes it is.  I'm sorry for being obscure (drunk already), I mean that, in the case of moving, the repeated thing is the very increment of your position, as well as update of your surroundings. This change repeats again and again. It is not something that is changing after a number of phases gone. The change is the very essence of a single phase. But, phases are _identical_.  I believe this is more or less what semantics of imperfective is about; anything else is lexical.


----------



## Lorenc

Vovan said:


> Yes, but the focus here is on "когда выпадал снег" (~ 'every time the snow had fallen'), which is (subjectively) seen as _one particular situation_.



Mmm, but doesn't когда выпадал снег implicate repetition? E.g. 
В детстве, когда выпадал снег я брал санки и выходил во двор гулять.
And in fact also in the original sentence (Когда́ выпада́л снег, его́ невозмо́жно бы́ло заста́вить сиде́ть до́ма) (as far as I understand) there is the imperfective было. So I don't really see how 'когда выпадал снег' is seen as a single situation.



Vovan said:


> And what really matters is _the result_ of one's actions in that situation (that is, the result of that 'making').
> 
> Constructions such as "невозможно (or: можно, нужно, etc.) было заставлять..." usually emphasize that there were (or: could/should have been) repeated attempts to make someone do something, often in a series of situations:
> [...]
> Also note that "невозможно (or: нельзя, недопустимо. etc.) было заставлять..." would often convey the lack of permisson or a moral right to force someone to do something



Thanks! You examples were useful, although I can't say I feel too confident. I think my original sentence is just very complex for a foreigner (because: 1. возможно, нужно, надо etc. have special rules for choice of aspect 2. the particle 'не' affects aspect choice 3. we have three verbs in a row).
I've found more sentences with заставлять/заставить on the Национальный корпус русского языка. I found 16 cases for 'было заставлять' and 168 for 'было заставить'
I'll report some of them with my understanding of aspect in those cases. Please tell me if I'm 1000 miles off the mark.

1.IMP. В детстве я был совершенно обычным ребенком, не то что сидел, читал. *Меня тоже надо было заставлять.*
"I also needed to be forced [to sit down and to read]".
Imperfective because being forced was a recurring event.

2.IMP. Светлана чувствовала себя легко и свободно, *потому что теперь ей не нужно было заставлять себя сдерживаться*.
"because now she didn't need to force herself to hold back."
Imperfective because (not) forcing herself takes place in an extended period of time (we can imagine to add the the sentence  'all the time', 'always').

3.IMP. *Не надо меня было заставлять говорить*, тебя это не касается…
"There was no need to force me to speak".
Imperfective because the action of forcing to speak is seen as a continuous process (perhaps a series of "speak! come, on! go on, then!")

1.PF Он, Сталин, никогда не был особенно по-человечески привязан к Молотову, но ценил его чрезвычайно. *Молотова, например, невозможно было заставить сорваться.*
"For example, it was impossible to force Molotov to lose control of himself / to lose his temper"
This structure is similar to the original sentence, so the same considerations should apply. The verb after заставить, *сорваться*, is perfective here so I suppose the image it gives is of 'throwing a fit' as a single event, rather than 'being angry for a while'. 

2.PF Он всё время работал, *его невозможно было заставить отдохнуть*.
"it was impossible to force him to have a rest".
Same as 1.PF above. Here too the perfective verb at the end indicates resting is seen as a unique whole without internal structure (with the result of refreshing one's energies) rather than a process.

3.PF *Необходимо было заставить деда выпить этот стакан.*
"It was indispensable to force grandad drink up that glass". This is a much simple sentence and there's no doubt that perfective is appropriate here.


----------



## Vovan

Lorenc said:


> 1.IMP. В детстве я был совершенно обычным ребенком, не то что сидел, читал. *Меня тоже надо было заставлять.*
> Imperfective because being forced was a recurring event.


Right! A possible use of the perfective form could be: _Меня всякий раз тоже нужно было (взять и) заставить._


Lorenc said:


> 2.IMP. Светлана чувствовала себя легко и свободно, *потому что теперь ей не нужно было заставлять себя сдерживаться*.
> Imperfective because (not) forcing herself takes place in an extended period of time.


Yes. But personally, I'd still imagine "заставлять" here through possible repeated situations which were supposedly going to happen to her. Use of the perfective verbal counterpart is impossible here.


Lorenc said:


> 3.IMP. *Не надо меня было заставлять говорить*, тебя это не касается…
> Imperfective because the action of forcing to speak is seen as a continuous process (perhaps a series of "speak! come, on! go on, then!")


Yes, but note that we can't be 100% sure that the person isn't talking about more than one situation. 
Use of the perfective is impossible here, either.


Lorenc said:


> 1.PF Он, Сталин, никогда не был особенно по-человечески привязан к Молотову, но ценил его чрезвычайно. *Молотова, например, невозможно было заставить сорваться.*
> This structure is similar to the original sentence, so the same considerations should apply. The verb after заставить, *сорваться*, is perfective here so I suppose the image it gives is of 'throwing a fit' as a single event, rather than 'being angry for a while'.


Right. "Взять и заставить" is theoretically possible here (which emphasizes that a/each/any single event is under consideration).


Lorenc said:


> 2.PF Он всё время работал, *его невозможно было заставить отдохнуть*.
> Same as 1.PF above. Here too the perfective verb at the end indicates resting is seen as a unique whole without internal structure (with the result of refreshing one's energies) rather than a process.


Absolutely. 


Lorenc said:


> 3.PF *Необходимо было заставить деда выпить этот стакан.*
> This is a much simple sentence and there's no doubt that perfective is appropriate here.


A single event, definitely ("этот стакан").



Lorenc said:


> I don't really see how 'когда выпадал снег' is seen as a single situation.


Well, I tried to explain that by the translation: "every time the snow had fallen". 
"A single" was supposed to include the case of "each/any".


----------



## nizzebro

Lorenc said:


> And in fact also in the original sentence (Когда́ выпада́л снег, его́ невозмо́жно бы́ло заста́вить сиде́ть до́ма) (as far as I understand) there is the imperfective было. So I don't really see how 'когда выпадал снег' is seen as a single situation.


Phrases as "Когда выпадал снег" are only additional modifiers of the described situation, you could replace them with adverbials like "прошлым летом", "часто", "в моём случае," - or just omit them telling about a particular single case. The main phrase matters. Of course, since we use 'each time', it cannot be based on a perfective which is about a _single _transition, so we use an imperfective, here было.

Было is imperfective - since to be is to be:  there's no transition between states as in perfective "стало" (for an "each time" case - imperf. 'становилось' ). It was good, it was bad, it was impossible; this does not imply any transition, we just have some (yet not described) state of affairs that is self-sustaining, "iterating" within the described time period. What is this state? "невозможность" (impossibility, to ...) "заставить сидеть дома" - and here, the perfective is used because this is about an achievement, a single specific transition between two states which was actually impossible, not doing repetition of this transition or being within an ongoing flow of its micro-phases - imperfective "заставлять" would mean either to do it again and again, or to be occupied by that, that is, for them to be located within a frame where they are doing that and where the final is not implied by any means.

Note that "невозмо́жно заста́вить" is an infinitive phrase. It is a self-sufficient thing, denoting something. We only insert it into the frame of было. It was good, it was bad, it was impossible to make the single, unique (within the described frame) achievement - to make him stay.

[Каждый год | в этом году] Мане и Ване было невозможно встречаться (imperf)- родители были против. (meet many times)
[Каждый год | в этом году] Мане и Ване было невозможно встретиться  (perf)-- аэропорт был закрыт. (a single specific meeting - no matter this year or each year).


----------



## Vovan

Lorenc said:


> I think my original sentence is just very complex <...> because <...> the particle 'не' affects aspect choice [and] we have three verbs in a row.


Very true.   
Leaving aside the impersonal "было возможно" and other specific verbs, and disregarding "не", let's see how all combinations are possible:
*[Мог/смог] [заставлять/заставить] [делать/сделать].*​Спрашиваете, как я _могла заставлять _соседских детей _мыть _полы в подъезде? (i+i+i)
А вы думаете, что без проблем _смогли _бы _требовать _от всех жильцов _ходить _босиком? (p+i+i)
В тот день я все никак не _могла заставить _этих безобразников не _шуметь_, поэтому решила позвонить маме и посоветоваться. (i+p+i)
Я не _смогла заставить _ее не _перебивать _меня - пришлось повесить трубку. (p+p+i)
Я не _могла заставлять _их засунуть себе в рот кляп, так как они разбежались по квартирам еще того, как я к ним вышла. Кто вам сказал эту глупость?! (i+i+p)
Я, наверное, _могла бы заставить _себя снова _прочесть _конспект по педагогике, но решила вначале позвонить знакомому психиатру. (i+p+p)
Его жена _осмелилась просить _меня _оставить _ее семью в покое. (p+i+p)
В итоге эта дрянь _смогла убедить _мужа _положить _меня в психушку. (p+p+p)


----------

