# Pattern to predict the perfective/imperfective forms of  Verbs



## IseeMeAndYou

Let's assume that a native Russian speaker came across a new verb in the imperfective form, he has to use this verb in a perfective aspect. Based on the structure of the verb word, is there a way to guess what its perfective form would be? Is there a pattern that Russians are instinctively aware of based on their frequent usage of the Russian language? Or do we just have to literally memorise each word with its perfective/imperfective forms?...


----------



## GCRaistlin

Sure there is (but it doesn't mean that any Russian native speaker can explain how to form it).


----------



## Awwal12

IseeMeAndYou said:


> Let's assume that a native Russian speaker came across a new verb in the imperfective form, he has to use this verb in a perfective aspect.


In short, that depends on the morphology of the source verb and the semantics of these verbs (mind you, derived perfective verbs tend to bring in additional meanings - most frequently that's resultative, sometimes of various kinds for the same source verb).


----------



## Maroseika

Глокая куздра.
Natives would easily make Imperfective form for _будлануть _and Perfective form for _курдячить_.


----------



## GCRaistlin

Maroseika said:


> Natives would easily make Imperfective form for _будлануть_


What would it be?


----------



## Maroseika

GCRaistlin said:


> What would it be?


Будлать (like сказать - сказануть), or будловать (like газовать - газануть), or будлить (like грабить - грабануть). Probably something else is also possible.
In other words, native will choose some usual pattern.


----------



## GCRaistlin

Multiple variants mean that you as native speaker _cannot_ give the Imperfective here.


----------



## Maroseika

GCRaistlin said:


> Multiple variants mean that you as native speaker _cannot_ give the Imperfective here.


Vice versa for me. Probably, we understand the question differently.


----------



## Awwal12

Maroseika said:


> Vice versa for me. Probably, we understand the question differently.


"To give the imperfective" means one can give a correct variant (as opposed to incorrect ones). The possibility to provide an endless number of "possible imperfective pairs" hardly counts: obviously, the verbal system of human languages doesn't work that way. For the notorious "будлану́ть", the most _expected _counterpair would be "будла́ть", but nobody can actually guarantee it is the correct one.

Nevertheless, imperfectivization is generally trivial - meaning it's comparatively easy to formalize (depending on the perfective verb morphology and probably the semantic relationships with the desired result, you will add suffixes, or remove suffixes, or remove prefixes, or use ablaut, or just suppose the verb to be biaspectual; all the relevant cases can be listed). The verbs which cannot be imperfectivized (like поста́вить) are lexically limited and may be just added to the list.

Perfectivization is much less so. As I said, perfectivization tends to bring in additional meanings most of the time (even when it's a simple resultative, which often "doesn't count" in traditional descriptions). And for the numerical majority of the pairs which are different only in their perfectiveness, Russian morphology either utilizes the perfective variant as the source one (прикрутить - прикручивать, убить - убивать, срубить - срубать, перепилить - перепиливать, очистить - очищать, списать - списывать; some of these patterns are unproductive, but some aren't), or just utilizes the pre-existing pairs of unprefixed basic verbs as a template (нанести - наносить, привезти - привозить; that mostly refers to the list of movement-related verbs), or utilizes some historical alterations/suppletive variants in the stem (сложить - складывать, отскрести - отскребать, взять - брать, etc.; obviously, all these cases are lexically limited). It becomes obvious that complications arise in case of some unknown, but certainly imperfective verb. It's no wonder that a great share of the verbs with loaned stems (typically ending in -ировать) end up biaspectual: реформировать, индексировать, дискриминировать etc. (про- can be used for an emphasized resultative). Colloquial, slangish loans (дефить, агриться, лутить etc.) often meet problems when forming perfective resultative verbs (задефить? заагриться?), and it's hard to predict which derivation will become establised (if it will at all) in each case.


Maroseika said:


> Perfective form for _курдячить_.


Form me a resultative from курдячить, please.  An instant action would be "курдякнуть" (by simple analogy), of course, but it is much less interesting.


----------



## GCRaistlin

Awwal12 said:


> slangish loans (дефить, агриться, лутить etc.) often meet problems when forming perfective resultative verbs (задефить? заагриться?)


I don't see any troubles here:
_дефить _(what does it mean by the way?) - _дефануть
агриться _- _агринуться
лутить _- _лутнуть_


Awwal12 said:


> Form me a resultative from курдячить, please.


It would be _курдячнуть, _undoubtedly.

It's hard to form Imperfective from _будлануть _because it feels like _клюнуть, тронуть, согнуть _etc. - i. e. verbs whose Imperfectives are being formed in inobvious ways. That's why all variants above _(будлать, будловать, будлить)_ seem questionable.


----------



## Maroseika

I think initial question was not clear enough - at least for me. If the question is whether a native can  guess what is correct/standard/conventional aspectual form of the unknown verb, the answer is of course NO - because formation of these forms follows various patterns, in most cases not deducible explicitly from the given form.

But if the question is whether a native can make an aspectual form that would be intelligible for other natives, the question is evidently YES.


----------



## Awwal12

GCRaistlin, "resultative" implies a successfully finished action, not a single instance of some repetative activity, which kind of verbs are typically forms by -(а)ну- (vs. строить > построить). For дефить, дефнуть would mean an attempt (likely an unprepared one), but not necessarily a succesful act. Cf. резануть < резать > порезать (with perfective meanings) and similar groups of verbs.


----------



## Rosett

IseeMeAndYou said:


> Or do we just have to literally memorise each word with its perfective/imperfective forms?...


The answer is “yes”, due to different usage patterns.


----------



## GCRaistlin

Rosett said:


> The answer is “yes”, due to different usage patterns.


Do you actually remember each verb form? What about _курдячить - курдячнуть?_


----------



## Simbex

IseeMeAndYou said:


> Based on the structure of the verb word, is there a way to guess what its perfective form would be?



The most common way to make a perfective form is to add the c- prefix. It's not the only way, but it works in many cases. Assume you come across the word 'хомячить'. Add c- and you'll get 'схомячить', and it's OK. It follows the pattern of делать -> сделать. I think you can use this pattern as a basic one, because memorising all forms for all verbs will take a hell of time.


----------



## Rosett

Simbex said:


> The most common way to make a perfective form is to add the c- prefix. It's not the only way, but it works in many cases. Assume you come across the word 'хомячить'. Add c- and you'll get 'схомячить', and it's OK. It follows the pattern of делать -> сделать. I think you can use this pattern as a basic one, because memorising all forms for all verbs will take a hell of time.


However, imperfective forms are often used and understood as functionally perfective -something that might confound non-natives who learned any of simplified rules.


----------



## Simbex

Rosett said:


> However, imperfective forms are often used and understood as functionally perfective -something that might confound non-natives who learned any of simplified rules.



Well, probably, yes. But I'm trying to offer a general guidance, something to start with. Of course, if we speak fundamentally, there are many ways, but a learner must have something simple—some simplified rule—as a starting point. And this is the 'c' prefix rule.

As a second guideline, a non-native should note whether the new word already has a prefix. If it does, then adding the 'c' prefix won't work. Take 'выполнить'. It won't be 'свыполнить'. It is already perfective in its meaning, as opposed to 'выполнять'. In these cases suffixes are used. Take 'задел*ыв*ать' (imperfective) / 'заделать' (perfective).

As for some intuitive sense of perfective form, I don't seem to have one. If we take 'кудрячить' I couldn't say for sure which one is correct—'скудрячить' or 'закудрячить' or 'накудрячить', since I don't know the meaning. But at least I can say that it has no prefix, therefore its perfective form should be constructed with one of the prefixes, rather than adding/removing suffixes or whatever. If we take something more understandable, e.g. assume I come accross 'герметизировать'. I know the meaning that the word's root conveys, but don't know the perfective form, and now I want to make the perfective form. Which one should I use: 'сгерметизировать' or 'загерметизировать'? Here a native speaker will rely on his/her past experience, trying to recall which variant he/she might have heard before. And experience is something that you have to gain, referring to words—memorise. Good luck!


----------



## Awwal12

Simbex said:


> The most common way to make a perfective form is to add the c- prefix. It's not the only way, but it works in many cases.


I really doubt its general productivity. Considering the loaned verbs which we examined above (which are random examples from an open subcathegory of verbs), *среформировать, *сындексировать, *сдискриминировать,*слутить, *сдефить, *сагриться don't look accepatble to my native ears at all.


Simbex said:


> Assume you come across the word 'хомячить'. Add c- and you'll get 'схомячить', and it's OK.


"Схомячить" is OK only because "с-" does form resultative perfectives of verbs describing eating (cf. стрескать, схрумтеть, сжевать, сожрать and, ultimately, съесть). A random selection of verbs, however, indicates its limited productivity: сколотить is OK, but it isn't a simple sematic pair to колотить (rather to сколачивать); for снести it works only for 1 meaning of the verb нести (particularly, нести яйца); *сосверлить doesn't exist; сгладить isn't a simple semantic pair of гладить (cf. сглаживать); etc.

I'd say it's simply useless to talk about perfectivization without any regard to verb subcathegories and their semantics. The very question "how to make an imperfective verb perfective" doesn't have much sense, since the immediate answer would be "what KIND of perfective verb should that be?"


----------



## Rosett

Simbex said:


> As a second guideline, a non-native should note whether the new word already has a prefex. If it does, then adding the 'c' prefix won't work. Take 'выполнить'. It won't be 'свыполнить'. It is already perfective in its meaning, as opposed to 'выполнять'


The imperfective pairв are «по́лнить» and «полни́ть», semantically distanced from «вы́полнить». In such a case, often we use an iterative perfective form «выполня́ть» which carries a different kind of imperfective aspect, but is generally paired with «выполнить» as a regular imperfective.


----------

