# Slovak: prísť <=> prichádzať/prichodiť // ísť <=> ísť?



## Concise

Hello,

this time I just need a sort of confirmation.

1. Is it correct that while prísť has its own imperfect form(s), ísť can be used both as perfect and imperfect verb?

2. Or only chodiť can be used as the imperfect form of ísť?

If 1 is true then how can one grasp any difference between ísť as imperfect verb and chodiť?

thanks in advance


----------



## numerator

Welcome back  Aspect in verbs of motion is a bit of a mess. I'll do my best to answer your question quickly and hopefully someone will expand or correct my response.

_Ísť _is primarily imperfective, focusing on the action.
But it can be used as perfective too sometimes _- _for example, the action is thought of as completed in sentences such as "Po štúdiách išiel do Prahy." or "Išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár."  
The dictionaries say the verb ísť can be "also prefective" (_i dok._) when it means going somehere with a purpose:
Slovenské slovníky
In both my examples, a prefixed perfective verb would work too (odišiel do Prahy, vyšiel som do kuchyne).

_Chodiť _primarily means repeated action. "Často chodí na výlety."
But it can be used instead of _ísť _in negative sentences, or with _vôbec_ "at all" (expressed or implied):_ Musíš tam ísť. / Nemusíš tam chodiť._ You have to go there. You needn't go there. _Načo som sem (vôbec) chodil? _Why have I come here (at all)?
And it also supplies the imperative forms for ísť: _choď _(instead of obsolete or dialectal _iď_), _nechoď_ (along with _nejdi_).


----------



## Concise

I have not learnt the imperative, but I am a bit curious as always whether there is a meaningful difference between iď/choď and poď.


----------



## numerator

> I am a bit curious as always whether there is a meaningful difference between iď/choď and poď.



Yes, there is! I'd say it's roughly along the lines of English _go_ and _come_, or Hungarian _menj_ and _gyere_: choď (niekam preč) vs. poď (sem).

A harder question would be when to use _poď_ vs. _príď_. _Poď _is used for an immediate invitation "come here (now)" and in _poď so mnou_, _poďme spolu _"come with me", "let's go together".
To invite someone to meet at a different time or place, we use _príď, _or also (somewhat more colloquially) _dôjdi: Príďte/Dôjdite ku mne zajtra na večeru._
This difference seems somewhat related to Hungarian _gyere_ and _jöjj (el)_ but it's not the same (cf. _Gyertek el vacsorára holnap._)


----------



## Concise

Sorry, it was a sort of “trap question”.

The different directions of choď and poď had been evident. 

Because the online dic had made it clear:

“*ísť* ide idú iď!/choď! (_smerom preč_)/poď! (_smerom sem_) idúc (i)šiel _bud._ pôjde pôjdu _zápor_nejsť nejde nejdú nejdi!/nechoď! nešiel _nedok.”_

In fact I was curious that why  poď could be found at ísť and not at prísť? Together with príď, as it is with choď and iď.

But you gave me some details regarding this curiosity, too. Even if it is still strange a bit for me that poď is classified as an imperative form of ísť.


----------



## numerator

Oh, you are right, I did not even notice that!
On first impulse, I would definitely put _poď _under _prísť_ if I were writing a dictionary.
But I guess then I would miss the "accompany me" submeaning, and also the fact that _poď_ can be an imperfective imperative (_Poď, poď, poď... = _"keep coming closer" or "keep coming along", focusing on the process rather than a goal)...

Semantics is hard


----------



## Concise

numerator said:


> _Poď, poď, poď... = _"keep coming closer" or "keep coming along", focusing on the process rather than a goal)...



Sure, but if not prísť, because the focus is on the process, then prichádzať and prichodiť are still closer to the meaning of poď then prísť is. At least if I think in the traditional way about directions. In Hungarian not just “jöjj”, but  “gyere” (“jer”) is closer to “jön” then to “megy”. Or in English it is closer to come than to go.

Off

In the meantime found a post on a Hungarian forum

“Gyere az a jerből származik.

Jer! = Gyere! = Jöjj!

Gyertek = jertek, a jöjjetek az újmódibb huncutság.

S ez a j szókezdő nem feltételezés.

A jer ma is élő szó, legfeljebb kicsit régies.

A gyerében pedig lehet, hogy már az ide is benne van, azaz gyere = jer ide! Ne csak úgy jöjj errefelé, hanem ide gyere.”

De ez ma már nem egyértelmű, ezért persze a gyere ide is jó.


----------



## Concise

numerator said:


> _Poď _is used for an immediate invitation "come here (now)" and in _poď so mnou_, _poďme spolu _"come with me", "let's go together".





numerator said:


> I would miss the "accompany me" submeaning,



But maybe the reason is just as you said. Poď not just has the meaning of “gyere” as “jer ide”, but also that of “gyere EL”. So it can refer to both “sem” (like in “Gyere ide hozzám”) and “_preč_” (“Gyere el hozzám”) in Slovak making it an imperative imperative with a sort of dual meaning (ísť and prichádzať/prichodiť).


----------



## numerator

But that's the thing! _Poď_ can be used to invite movement towards the speaker in the present (poď sem = come here = gyere ide) or to accompany the speaker (poď so mnou = come/go with me = gyere velem).

But "gyere el" as in "come and join me - at a different time, or at a different place" is definitely _príď_, not _poď_:
_Príď ku mne zajtra.
Príď, kedy len budeš chcieť.
Príď k mostu, o chvíľu sa tam stretneme._

BTW, _poď _is apparently etymologically related to _pôjdem _(which is used as the future tense form of _ísť_) so that may be another reason it's considered a form of _ísť_? I agree that semantically it's much closer to _prísť/prichádzať/prichodiť_ and that's where I would expect to find it in a dictionary.


----------



## Concise

Just a correction from me to feel eased



Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Sure, but if not prísť, because the focus is on the process, then prichádzať and prichodiť are still closer to the meaning of poď then prísť is.



I meant “….then ísť is.”

Finally a feedback: discussing and understanding this was a real real fun for me. Thank you for participating in it!


----------



## Concise

I have re-read our discussion again, because I faced this sentence:
“Už ide hlavný cašník.”, and the context made it clear that its meaning is “the head waiter is already coming (and not going).

Although we analyzed the prefective forms of ísť, see eg.

 “*ísť* ide idú iď!/choď! (_smerom preč_)/poď! (_smerom sem_) idúc (i)šiel _bud._ pôjde pôjdu _zápor_nejsť nejde nejdú nejdi!/nechoď! nešiel _nedok.”, _

I still feel that in our discussion it was not explicity stated that when one has to use “ide” with the meaning of “come”/“be coming”  when we would like to express the process, that is one thing is sure: imperfective form is needed.

Since it seems that in my head there is still a mess regarding verbs of motion, I just ask it simply: “ide” is the only good solution in this case? Prichádzať for example?


----------



## Concise

I found a pretty good resource, because there is some limited Hungarian in it, too, http://pf.ujs.sk/documents/2018-03-09_2018.03.06_Toth_Aspekty_Nyomdaba_Belivek.pdf.

But it made just even clearer that why príde is not good in this case, but I found not a straightforward explanation why prichodí or prichádza would not be good. So the latter two are also correct, I assume. But if so, is there any difference eg. between these sentences?

1. Vlak už prichádza.
2. Vlak už prichodí.
3. Vlak už ide. (sem, a nie preč)

EDIT: I found another source, from page 202 in https://www.juls.savba.sk/ediela/sr/1999/4/sr1999_4.odt, but without having it translated by google translate I feel that although it must be interesting, but it is not exactly about what I would like to understand.


----------



## francisgranada

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> ... is there any difference eg. between these sentences?
> 
> 1. Vlak už prichádza.
> 2. Vlak už prichodí.
> 3. Vlak už ide. (sem, a nie preč)


Approximately:

_*Vlak už prichádza *_-  "the train is arriving" (a vonat már érkezik, "már érkezőben/jövésben van", i.e. nem sokára itt lesz ...)
_*Vlak už ide*_ - "the train comes" (a vonat már jön, nem tudni mikor érkezik meg, de már elindult ...).
_*Vlak už príde*_ - "the train will come [soon]" (a vonat már [nem sokára] eljön/megérkezik ...)
_*Vlak už prichodí*_ - not used, not idiomatic.


----------



## Concise

Thanks, but if I regard these two



francisgranada said:


> _*Vlak už prichádza *_- "the train is arriving" (a vonat már érkezik, "már érkezőben/jövésben van", i.e. nem sokára itt lesz ...)
> _*Vlak už ide*_ - "the train comes" (a vonat már jön, nem tudni mikor érkezik meg, de már elindult ...).



Then why “Už ide hlavný cašník”.?

The context was that two people were sitting at a table in  restaurant having decided what to order and one said it.

Why not “Už prichádza hlavný cašník”. If I see a head waiter is coming, walking toward me, I know very well that it is just a question of seconds that he will be here.

Sorry for being so stubborn, but isn’t the sentence I originally cited is simply an incorrect one?


----------



## francisgranada

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Why not “Už prichádza hlavný cašník”. If I see a head waiter is coming, walking toward me, I know very well that it is just a question of seconds that he will be here.


This is good as well, especially when I see the waiter already coming (as you have correctly mentioned).

“Už ide  čašník” is practically the same, but maybe I don't yet see him ...

All in all, in practice these nuances are not always explainable "exactly" ...


----------



## Concise

Accepted.


----------



## Sobakus

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Thanks, but if I regard these two
> 
> 
> 
> Then why “Už ide hlavný cašník”.?
> 
> The context was that two people were sitting at a table in  restaurant having decided what to order and one said it.
> 
> Why not “Už prichádza hlavný cašník”. If I see a head waiter is coming, walking toward me, I know very well that it is just a question of seconds that he will be here.
> 
> Sorry for being so stubborn, but isn’t the sentence I originally cited is simply an incorrect one?


I don't speak any Slovak, but hopefully my explanation is still correct. _*prichádzať*_ is a telic, goal-oriented process (= an accomplishment), since it's a prefixed verb back-formed from the perfective _*prísť*_ to be able express the same meaning but in the imperfective aspect. The focus is on achieving the final state, and so _*prichádza* _means “is completing his arrival, is near and about to arrive, is in the final stage of coming here”.

_*ide*_ on the other hand is not concerned with any goal or result, but only with the process of movement, and simply means “is walking, is on his way”. The seemingly goal-oriented translation _is coming_ is specific to English, which distinguishes between _come_ for movement towards and _go_ for movement away. _*ísť*_ has no semantics of goal-orientedness, and isn't similar in any way to its contextually-determined English translation.


----------



## Concise

So for the sake of simplicity I am going to regard _*prichádzať*_ et al as imperfective, but almost perfective verbs. I hope that this simplification does not distort too much compared to the real, subtle explanation.


----------



## Sobakus

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> So for the sake of simplicity I am going to regard _*prichádzať*_ et al as imperfective, but almost perfective verbs. I hope that this simplification does not distort too much compared to the real, subtle explanation.


This depends entirely on what you mean by regarding something as imperfective, perfective or almost perfective, and can range from a useful or unhelpful simplification to absolutely catastophic. But since I don't know what it means or what real-world consuequences it might have, I cannot evaluate how useful or disastrous this approach is.

I can say, though, that I don't think my explanation is in need of further simplification if one understands perfectiveness correctly: _prichádzať_ is the imperfective equivalent of _prísť_ that has identical (goal-oriented) meaning but opposite aspect. The prefix _pri- _is mostly responsible for that goal-oriented meaning.

There's no perfective verb whose meaning is identical to the non-goal-oriented imperfective _ísť –_ which is partly why this verb is sometimes used as a perfective.


----------



## Concise

It was a wise answer from you, indeed. 

I really dont know why it takes so much energy for me to easily handle the field of perfectiveness. Especially in case of verbs with prefixes.

In my mother language, Hungarian, there are many prefixes as part of verbs, similarly to Slavic languages.

Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that in case of languagues it is easier to understand and apply those rules of languages being learnt which are really different from those in your first/mother language than apply those rules which are a bit different, but at the same time they are similar, too.


----------



## Sobakus

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that in case of languagues it is easier to understand and apply those rules of languages being learnt which are really different from those in your first/mother language than apply those rules which are a bit different, but at the same time they are similar, too.


I think you're right when it comes to consciously applying rules – being really different means being easy to spot and apply a conscious transformation-type rule to. But gradual differences are way easier to acquire and internalise as part of internal grammar, which is what language learning is really about, while conscious rules is a temporary workaround on the way to acquisition.

The trouble with Slavic aspects is that there are *primary* and *secondary* imperfectives. Most perfectives are formed to *primary* imperfectives by adding prefixes, but the resulting verb naturally ends up having a much more specific meaning, which is defined by the prefix. Then if you want to express this exact meaning in the imperfective, you have to form a *secondary* imperfective to the prefixed perfective – and this is exactly what we have here. Thankfully, this is where the chain stops, as there is perfect equivalence in meaning between a perfective and its secondary imperfective. In contrast to this, probably no prefixed perfective means exactly the same thing as the primary, non-prefixed imperfective that is usually listed in the dictionaries as its pair – it's simply a good enough aspectual match most of the time. In fact, many primary imperfectives can be said to have multiple corresponding prefixed perfectives depending on the final state of a given activity, forming not pairs but entire networks. Verbs for cooking should serve as a good example.


----------



## francisgranada

Fully agreeing with the perfect explanation of Sobakus, I’d like to add the following:

I think these „complications“ with the usage of _ísť, prísť, prichodiť, prichádzať _… for a non native speaker are primarily due to the fact, that in Slavic languages the verbs „_go”_ and „_come_“ derive from the same root: _ísť, prísť_ (<pri+ísť) . See the different roots, for example in Eng. _go/come_, Hu. _megy/jön_, Sp_. ir/venir_, etc …

The verb „ísť ” provided with a prefix (_prísť, odísť, zájsť , výjsť ....)_ when conjugated in present tense, it has automatically a future meaning or “aspect”. This happens (logically) in some other languages as well. (E.g. the Hungarian “*el*_megy_” also refers rather to the future and not to “right now”).

So the “solution” is the *secondary* imperfective, which is de facto an "_iterative / continuative"_. E.g.:
_Čašník (práve) prichádza_ = The waiter is coming/arriving (right now) – continuative
_Čašnik stále prichádza pozde_ = The waiter always (repeatedly) comes/arrives late - iterative


----------



## Sobakus

While grateful to francisgranada for his kind words, I would like to question whether it's helpful to equate _ísť, prísť_ with “to go, come”.

If Slovak is anything like Russian, then these words specifically refer to pedestrian movement, at least outside of some idiomatic combinations, like with trains or ships. There should be no single verb that means “to go, move” or “to come, arrive” regardless of the type of movement, and on the flip side, no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”. So _ísť, prísť_ shouldn't be abnormal but fit with all the other movement verbs like _letieť/priletieť, viezť sa/doviezť sa_ etc. All of these can be translated with “to go” and “to come”, but that's not their actual meaning. And it's not just verbs of movement either – many other verbs should fit the same pattern and allow forming secondary, prefixed imperfectives.

I would suggest completely avoiding the use of the verbs “come” or “arrive” in trying to explain aspects in verbs of movement. Maybe this would help us avoid the exact problem that Tisztul_A_Visztula describes here:


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that in case of languagues it is easier to understand and apply those rules of languages being learnt which are really different from those in your first/mother language than apply those rules which are a bit different, but at the same time they are similar, too.


----------



## Sobakus

By the way, these _come-go_ verbs are called deictic verbs. They express the orientation of motion in relation to some deictic center, normally the speaker or the addressee. Most Slavic languages don't possess these verbs, although Bulgarian and BCS seem to. Normally, Slavic languages express motion-from or -towards using prefixes, while the verbal root expresses Manner of motion. This type of languages is known as Satellite-framed (the prefix is the satellite expressing Path).

These contrast with Verb-framed languages like Spanish, that express an event like _Буты́лка *заплыла́* в пеще́ру/A bottle *floated* into the cave_ as _La botella *entró* a la cueva (flotando),_ lit. “The bottle *entered* [to] the cave (floating).” Similarly, “to run into the room” will be expressed as _entrar corriendo._ So the same verb expresses Path, while Manner is only expressed when necessary using the various manner expressions/adverbs.

So in the same vein, _prísť_ may be translated into English as “to come by walking”, _priletieť _“to come by flying”, and _doviezť sa _“to arrive by transport”.

For more details check the wiki article on Verb-framing. Beware of some descriptions that unhelpfully mix together Path and Deictic orientation. Many languages express them separately, and even the English _to come out/go in_ is a great illustration of this.


----------



## Concise

Sobakus said:


> I think you're right when it comes to consciously applying rules – being really different means being easy to spot and apply a conscious transformation-type rule to. But gradual differences are way easier to acquire and internalise as part of internal grammar, which is what language learning is really about, while conscious rules is a temporary workaround on the way to acquisition.



Your answer seems to be wise again, because it made clear for me that in desperate situation of non-understanding I simply need those bl**dy temporary solutions, but it is not the right way to learn languagues in the long term. 

Nevertheless let me highlight that although I know that my learning process is much longer than the others, the way how I am looking for not just simple rules, but sub-rules and sub-sub-rules etc. helps me to experience lots of tremendous (or just simply substantial  ) realizations, which I really like, and which gives me motive power to learn on.



Sobakus said:


> The trouble with Slavic aspects is that there are *primary* and *secondary* imperfectives.



Sure, I realized on my own that while I was looking for the perfective pair of an imperfective verb without prefix, (or vice versa), like in case of dávat' (or dat'), sometimes I could find the pair verb without any prefixes, and I was happy that it was so simple. But the majority of the verbs work in a different way. 

By the way as far as I remember I met much more imperfective verbs without prefixes than perfective ones, so typically I started to look for the perfective form. And again ideally without any prefixes. I felt that I needed to find them, because in the long term having imperfective-perfective pairs of verbs will help me not to be lost in the wild forest of Slavic verbs.  

Q1: Do you think whether it is a good strategy to learn verbs in pairs?

An example: when I met pálit', which is imperfective, first I realized that there was no perfective without prefixes. In the second step, during my pair-search I found more than one perfective verbs with prefixes, like popálit', pripálit' etc. 

My strategy was to check all the perfective verbs whether they had an imperfective form. So when I found pripal'ovat' I excluded pripálit' from the list. Finally there was only popálit' which seemed to not have an imperfective form. So I double checked what its exact meanings are, and if one of its meanings was in line with at least one of the meanings of pálit' I recorded it as pairs. I mean pálit'+popálit'. Of course, sometimes with notes to highlight that based on their meanings they are not fully pairs, but at least partly.

Q2: Is it a good method to identify the pairs? Or is it a false approach and there is much more easy way to do that? Or again (Q1) does it make any sense to hunt for pairs?



Sobakus said:


> Most perfectives are formed to *primary* imperfectives by adding prefixes,



I read the remaining part of this longer paragraph 4 or 5 times, but did not understood perfectly. I started to feel that maybe I didn't understand this quoted part. And I am sure the reason lies in (my or your) English.

Q3/a: Do you mean perfectives are formed FROM primary imperfectives by adding prefixes? 

The word "TO" in the position of my "FROM" totally confuses me. Moreover I realized that you must have used it consciously, see "you have to form a *secondary* imperfective to (!) the prefixed perfective", so I was looking for "form to" in English dictionaries, but found no relevant structures. 

As a next attempt I supposed that you simply meant "to" to be "next to" or "to be a pair of". This interpretation would work, because it would mean that perfective are formed FROM primary imperfectives TO BE THE PAIR OF THE LATTER.

Q3/b: But am I right? Please help me with it, because I guess it makes no sense to spend more time with the analysis
of your answer before being sure that I correctly understand this sole sentence.

As a sidenote I know the prefixed verbs are formed not only from imperfective verbs. See dat' => pridat' and dávat' => pridávat'.

Q4/a: But what about those perfective, non-prefixed verbs which do not have an imperfective, non-prefixed pair? Can they have a prefixed form with an imperfective approach? Or adding any prefixes to any perfective verb means that the result is always a perfective verb? 

Q4/b: Or is there any non-prefixed perfective verbs without having a non-prefixed imperfective form???

FrancisGranada's post:



francisgranada said:


> I think these „complications“ with the usage of _ísť, prísť, prichodiť, prichádzať _… for a non native speaker are primarily due to the fact, that in Slavic languages the verbs „_go”_ and „_come_“ derive from the same root: _ísť, prísť_ (<pri+ísť) . See the different roots, for example in Eng. _go/come_, Hu. _megy/jön_, Sp_. ir/venir_, etc …



To be frank, yes, it was part of my story. I immediately realized that príst' comes from íst', and yes, it made me think a lot.



francisgranada said:


> The verb „ísť ” provided with a prefix (_prísť, odísť, zájsť , výjsť ....)_ when conjugated in present tense, it has automatically a future meaning or “aspect”. This happens (logically) in some other languages as well. (E.g. the Hungarian “*el*_megy_” also refers rather to the future and not to “right now”).



While I understand your remark related to Slovak and to some other languages, let me share that for me who is a native Hungarian, "elmegy" in itself has a strong present aspect, too, not just the future one. Even when it is not happening now, it will be going to happen immediately. 

Using the present form, "elmegy" can be really an answer to a question made about the future using "fog"/"majd", "El fog menni?- Igen, elmegy", but if there are no precedents made in any future forms then I don't use "elmegy" to refer to future. Otherwise I would confuse my audience.



francisgranada said:


> So the “solution” is the *secondary* imperfective, which is de facto an "_iterative / continuative"_. E.g.:
> _Čašník (práve) prichádza_ = The waiter is coming/arriving (right now) – continuative
> _Čašnik stále prichádza pozde_ = The waiter always (repeatedly) comes/arrives late - iterative



I am very happy that you made a remark about iterative, because during my pair-search in those cases when the first verb I met was perfective (dok. in the dictionary) and I was looking for imperfective form (nedok. in the dictionary) I often found words classified as "opak." (typically words ending with -ávat'). 

Sometimes  it happened that there were no nedok., just opak. 

Therefore I started to  wonder where the border of iterative/opak. verbs and imperfective/nedok. forms.  How can it be that there is a perfective form, no imperfective form, just an iterative form.

Q5: Or in Slovak should I simply regard opak. as a sub-class of nedok.? And it is just a question of marking system, because the dictionary could also state a word like nedok.+opak.? And never like dok.+opak.?

Back to Sobakus:



Sobakus said:


> If Slovak is anything like Russian, then these words specifically refer to pedestrian movement, at least outside of some idiomatic combinations, like with trains or ships. There should be no single verb that means “to go, move” or “to come, arrive” regardless of the type of movement, and on the flip side, no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”. So _ísť, prísť_ shouldn't be abnormal but fit with all the other movement verbs like _letieť/priletieť, viezť sa/doviezť sa_ etc. All of these can be translated with “to go” and “to come”, but that's not their actual meaning. And it's not just verbs of movement either – many other verbs should fit the same pattern and allow forming secondary, prefixed imperfectives.
> 
> I would suggest completely avoiding the use of the verbs “come” or “arrive” in trying to explain aspects in verbs of movement.



I hope it is the right English term, but I guess you nailed it, Sobakus. It has been, is and will be pretty tough not to convert in my mind the meaning of íst' as "come" and "go" , but I guess omitting it is the way to follow. 

Let me focus on one of your sentences in this part again. This one:



Sobakus said:


> There should be no single verb that means “to go, move” or “to come, arrive” regardless of the type of movement, and on the flip side, no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”.



You mentioned the key is the pedestrian movement, which can happen to any direction if we use "íst'" without using any prefix. It is clear for me. 

You wrote 'there should be no single verb that means "to go, move" or "to come, arrive"...' 

Q6/a: Did you mean that Slovak/Russian/Slavic languagues do not require any verbs with a sole meaning of "to come" or with a sole meaning of "to go", based on the logics of these languages? 

Q6/b But there are some, aren't they? When I use "pri-", so príst' or prichádzat', then the direction is restricted. I don't feel that these two verbs has anything with "to go", just with "to come". Or did I miss something? 

The second part of your comment is that '.. and on the flip side, (there should be) no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”..."

Q7: I feel I understand that why one verb is enough to express the meanings of "to go out" and "to come out", but what is the actual situation? Is there only one verb with this pseudo-dual meaning, or the fact is that in real life there are two verbs to express "to come out" and "to go out", respectively?


----------



## Concise

Note: I tried to make one post, but I ran into the restriction of max. 10000 characters, even after shortened the quotes, so the final part of my answer is here, separatedly.

And the masterpiece.



Sobakus said:


> By the way, these _come-go_ verbs are called deictic verbs. .....




This analysis made me relax that generally I understood your other comments made earlier than this post, and the answers to my questions marked with "Q6" and 'Q7" should simply confirm my understanding. If you have not mistyped anything in English, then either my English was not good enough, or my concentration was too bad when I was reading those of your sentences which triggered Q6 and Q7.


Note 2: I know the previous one is a murderously long post, but I felt it would be good to unite the earlier separated comments into one post, either to close all the open questions, or if my understanding is still wrong then to open new ones.


----------



## Sobakus

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Sure, I realized on my own that while I was looking for the perfective pair of an imperfective verb without prefix, (or vice versa), like in case of dávat' (or dat'), sometimes I could find the pair verb without any prefixes, and I was happy that it was so simple. But the majority of the verbs work in a different way.


Yep, that's because there are primary (non-prefixed) perfectives as well, but they're a closed class (new ones can't be formed) and limited in number. They generally go way back to when there wasn't the modern aspectual system, so _dávat'_ was iterative intead of imperfective, and _dat'_ was like “give” in your average European language.
Iteratives are just a sub-class of imperfectives in Slavic, and when there isn't a separate iterative the normal impf. covers that function (to answer your question to *francisgranada*). I doubt there's ever an iterative-only impf. without a non-iterative one.​


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q1: Do you think whether it is a good strategy to learn verbs in pairs?


Surely you want to know the nearest aspectual pair when learning a new verb. But ideally it should just be given in the dictionary. I see however that in this one only perfective ones are given a pair. Is it because the authors don't think there's a canonical perfective pair to most impf. verbs? Russian dictionaries always give the pf. correspondence, several if necessary.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q2: Is it a good method to identify the pairs? Or is it a false approach and there is much more easy way to do that? Or again (Q1) does it make any sense to hunt for pairs?


Good method when dictionaries are being mean. You should soon recognise the patterns of default, most unmarked prefix selection depending on the verb's meaning. For ex. _po-_ often means “to do for a time and then stop”, so it's likely to be unmarked with verbs that have no natural end-point (states/activities). It doesn't look like you mind being stuck in a dictionary any way :-) (me neither, reading a monolingual dictionary is a great way to build the mental lexicon)


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q3/a: Do you mean perfectives are formed FROM primary imperfectives by adding prefixes?


Yes, more or less “to be the pair”. “to” and “from” can equally be used with “forming”, the former expressing future goal, the latter past source. I was focusing on the goal, i.e. creating a paired verb.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q4/a: But what about those perfective, non-prefixed verbs which do not have an imperfective, non-prefixed pair? Can they have a prefixed form with an imperfective approach? Or adding any prefixes to any perfective verb means that the result is always a perfective verb?


Adding prefixes to a perfective will never net an imperfective in Russian, so presumably in Slovak too.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q4/b: Or is there any non-prefixed perfective verbs without having a non-prefixed imperfective form???


I'm sure a handful can be found, but should be super rare. I would expect there to be more bi-aspectual verbs. I think veliť is an example of the latter, despite _nedok. _– see phrases.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q6/a: Did you mean that Slovak/Russian/Slavic languagues do not require any verbs with a sole meaning of "to come" or with a sole meaning of "to go", based on the logics of these languages?


Exactly that – these meanings are already expressed partly through prefixes, partly through the aspectual system.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q6/b But there are some, aren't they? When I use "pri-", so príst' or prichádzat', then the direction is restricted. I don't feel that these two verbs has anything with "to go", just with "to come". Or did I miss something?


The difference is that the movement they express isn't centered on the speaker or the adressee. They express approaching some goal, but not moving towards or away from one of the participants of the conversation. In contrast, in English you can “come away” towards the speaker's current location or “go in” away from it.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q7: I feel I understand that why one verb is enough to express the meanings of "to go out" and "to come out", but what is the actual situation? Is there only one verb with this pseudo-dual meaning, or the fact is that in real life there are two verbs to express "to come out" and "to go out", respectively?


I don't think there are two separate verbs to express this in any Slavic language. It's conceivable that Bulgarian could have it because it's the closest to the Romance-type Verb-framed system due to Balkan Sprachbund influence. But these verbs mostly arise in Bulgarian from prefixed verbs when the prefix loses its separate meaning and the whole acquires a new composite meaning, as in _идвам/дойда_ “come” and _отивам/отида_ “go”, or _прибирам се/прибера се_ “to go home” (aspectual pairs). I don't think you can attach another prefix to them to get “to go out” or “to come out”. You'd have to use adverbs.

Phew, I hope I've managed to cover all of your questions, but I'll happily answer any that remain!


----------



## Concise

First of all thanks for both closing the items I have opened and opening new ones, although the latter is a bit painful to my brain,  .



Sobakus said:


> I doubt there's ever an iterative-only impf. without a non-iterative one.


This  will be my assumption too, until somebody will have cracked it.


Sobakus said:


> I'm sure a handful can be found, but should be super rare


I checked all my notes written in my old fashioned dictionary booklet where I gathered all the Slovak words I have ever faced, and found none. So it is not a proof yet that it is super rare, but an evidence it is really not common.



Sobakus said:


> Surely you want to know the nearest aspectual pair when learning a new verb. But ideally it should just be given in the dictionary



But not in my printed dictionary, which is not monolingual, but a bilingual (Slovak-Hungarian). And its meanness is the main reason why I had to rely on online, monolingual dictionaries.



Sobakus said:


> Good method when dictionaries are being mean


So, let’s call my approach a desperate, but justified one.  


Sobakus said:


> It doesn't look like you mind being stuck in a dictionary any way



Is it so obvious that I am a bit beyond 3 sigma?  




Sobakus said:


> see however that in this one only perfective ones are given a pair. Is it because the authors don't think there's a canonical perfective pair to most impf. verbs? Russian dictionaries always give the pf. correspondence, several if necessary.



So it seems only some native Slovak can explain why I can easily find the imperfective form/pair of the non-prefixed perfective verbs in this dictionary, and why in case of primary imperfective verbs there is no clear assignment refering to a prefixed perfective verb as a dedicated pair.

But let me add, because maybe you have not checked enough words that in case of many primary imperfective verbs some prefixed perfective ones are listed in fact, but as you wrote almost never just one (otherwise I could not play my approach detailed earlier).



Sobakus said:


> Exactly that – these meanings are already expressed partly through prefixes, partly through the aspectual system.
> The difference is that the movement they express isn't centered on the speaker or the adressee. They express approaching some goal, but not moving towards or away from one of the participants of the conversation. In contrast, in English you can “come away” towards the speaker's current location or “go in” away from it.



Before talking about your sentence impling my Q7, I wish to close Q6.

If I say thaf* ísť simply means “to be on the move“ or “to change position in a pedestrian way” and prísť/prichádzať means “to arrive to a place in a pedestrian way”*, do I fully cover your sentence which implied my Q6/a and Q6/b or did you want to express with it some more subtle details  implicitly?

I mean the following sentence as a trigger of Q6s:



Sobakus said:


> There should be no single verb that means “to go, move” or “to come, arrive” regardless of the type of movement, and on the flip side, no two different verbs for “to come out” and “to go out”.



Note: Let me highlight that I remember you advised not to use “to arrive” for prísť/prichádzať,  but your definition “to come by walking” contains “come”, which confuses me again.

Q8: btw a question about your terminology: when you referred  to “single verb”, do you mean ísť+prísť  to be still a single verb, because prísť is just a prefixed form of the former, or you regards them two verbs. 
Or (and it came to mymind only now) you simply meant “no single” as “none”/“not any”? ;-)


----------



## Concise

I tell you all a secret,  I have read all the posts of the thread many times. Actually I read them after every new post just to check whether my newer and newer understanding is in line with all the comments of you, Slavic native speakers.

And I caught something:



numerator said:


> _Ísť _is primarily imperfective, focusing on the action.
> But it can be used as perfective too sometimes _- _for example, the action is thought of as completed in sentences such as "Po štúdiách išiel do Prahy." or "Išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár."
> *The dictionaries say the verb ísť can be "also prefective" (i dok.) when it means going somehere with a purpose:*
> Slovenské slovníky





Sobakus said:


> *ide on the other hand is not concerned with any goal or result,* but only with the process of movement, and simply means “is walking, is on his way”.





Sobakus said:


> *ísť has no semantics of goal-orientedness*, and isn't similar in any way to its contextually-determined English translation





Sobakus said:


> *There's no perfective verb whose meaning is identical to the non-goal-oriented imperfective *_*ísť *–_ which is partly why this verb is sometimes used as a perfective.



You can imagine how I feel now. No, not boastful, just sad. I feel I stepped back in my mission to get a clear picture. At least for the perfective usage of ísť, which was my very first question in the thread.


----------



## Sobakus

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Before talking about your sentence impling my Q7, I wish to close Q6.
> 
> If I say thaf* ísť simply means “to be on the move“ or “to change position in a pedestrian way” and prísť/prichádzať means “to arrive to a place in a pedestrian way”*, do I fully cover your sentence which implied my Q6/a and Q6/b or did you want to express with it some more subtle details  implicitly?


I think this covers it.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Note: Let me highlight that I remember you advised not to use “to arrive” for prísť/prichádzať,  but your definition “to come by walking” contains “come”, which confuses me again.


Yep, I noticed that, but that “come” corresponds to the prefix _pri-/do-_ and depends on the contextual interpetation wherein the end-point of the motion coincides with the location of the speaker. Anyway, maybe my suggestion was a practical impossibility after all :]


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q8: btw a question about your terminology: when you referred  to “single verb”, do you mean ísť+prísť  to be still a single verb, because prísť is just a prefixed form of the former, or you regards them two verbs.
> 
> Or (and it came to mymind only now) you simply meant “no single” as “none”/“not any”? ;-)


I meant that there should be no single verb that can be used regardless of manner of movement, one “come” for pedestrian, vehicular, aerial, naval, running, jumping etc. movement, or one “go”. No deictic movement verbs.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> I tell you all a secret,  I have read all the posts of the thread many times. Actually I read them after every new post just to check whether my newer and newer understanding is in line with all the comments of you, Slavic native speakers.


Then I'm writing this for the right person, because that's exactly how I write my replies as well, which I then copy-edit, sometimes even after several hours xD


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> And I caught something:
> 
> You can imagine how I feel now. No, not boastful, just sad. I feel I stepped back in my mission to get a clear picture. At least for the perfective usage of ísť, which was my very first question in the thread.


I love how you express this  To be honest, it's been a while since I've explained Slavic perfectiveness, and with my choice of words probably fell into the most frequent trap: failing to properly separate *syntactic constituents* (objects, complements, adjuncts) from aspect, i.e. *how the action is metaphorically conceived from the inside.* There's another difficulty, namely that this verb can't be used perfectively in Russian, but the paradigm of _pôjdu_ is used in the past (_pošёl, pošlá, pošló_). But this seems only a formal difference, basically the past tense in Slovak just happens to be missing the prefix for whatever reason.

Anyway, having an object or a goal adjunct has nothing to do with perfectiveness. The internal structure of an imperfective verb simply doesn't have a final end-point, so _biť koňa_ means “to be hitting the horse” and the action is considered completed when you stop hitting it – no end-point or result is specified in the internal structure of the action. In the same way, _ísť do práce, na koncert, zo školy_ means “to be in the process of pedestrian movement towards/from”.

Then what does _išiel som do kuchyne_ actually refer to, you might ask? Again, I don't speak Slovak, but I'm pretty sure it refers to the *start* of movement: “I've successfully started my pedestrian movement towards the kitchen; I've set off and am on my way there”. And this is the actual difficulty with Slavic verbs of movement, in that the default perfective ones, normally prefixed with _po-,_ refer to the start of movement without specifying Path, while other prefixes generally specify Path, i.e. what end-point, what final state should be reached for the action to be considered completed.

Now I'm wondering, how do you say “I was walking home” as opposed to “I went home” in Slovak?


----------



## francisgranada

Sobakus said:


> Now I'm wondering, how do you say “I was walking home” as opposed to “I went home” in Slovak?


Išiel som domov. Odišiel som domov. 

(Approximately, as e.g. "I was walking" for me means also  "prechádzal som sa", "išiel som peši" and who knows what else ...)


----------



## Sobakus

francisgranada said:


> Išiel som domov. Odišiel som domov.
> 
> (Approximately, as e.g. "I was walking" for me means also  "prechádzal som sa", "išiel som peši" and who knows what else ...)


So does _išiel som do kuchyne, keď Michal doniesol pohár _express concurrent/simultaneous actions, and _išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár_ a sequence of events? Or does the first one mean “I left for the kitchen when...”, i.e. a sequence of punctual events?


----------



## Concise

francisgranada said:


> Išiel som domov. Odišiel som domov.
> 
> (Approximately, as e.g. "I was walking" for me means also  "prechádzal som sa", "išiel som peši" and who knows what else ...)


I am happy and pleased that I fully understand this post.

I guess I should decrease the level of my curiosity to the level of this sort of examples, otherwise I would go mad .


----------



## Sobakus

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> I am happy and pleased that I fully understand this post.
> 
> I guess I should decrease the level of my curiosity to the level of this sort of examples, otherwise I would go mad .


I'm wondering though if you fully understand the points I made in my last message, namely that 1) aspectual end/goal-orientedness (terminativity) is completely separate from the verb having a syntactically expressed object or a direction/purpose adjunct, or generally from verbal (in-)transitivity, valency = argument structure etc.; and 2) that in movement verbs, the default perfective verb designates the start of movement, and this is the meaning that the dictionary is referring to, as in _*išiel* som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár._


----------



## Concise

Frankly speaking I put it apart from a day or two, because I need a fresh brain to deal with it. But you can be deadly sure that I will either confirm this understanding or I will ask for more.

And really many thanks for all the efforts you people made in order to give a big chance for me to understand these things.


----------



## francisgranada

Sobakus said:


> So does _išiel som do kuchyne, keď Michal doniesol pohár _express concurrent/simultaneous actions, and _išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár_ a sequence of events? Or does the first one mean “I left for the kitchen when...”, i.e. a sequence of punctual events?


From the practical point of view:

_"išiel som do kuchyne, keď Michal doniesol pohár" _ is a bit ambiguous ... To make the sense clear, in practice one would say something like this:
_"išiel som do kuchyne, práve keď Michal doniesol pohár" _ > simultaneous actions
_"išiel som do kuchyne, až keď Michal doniesol pohár" _ > sequence of events (first Michal, then me)

_"išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár" > _intuitively, two contemporaneous events. Practically it means _"iśiel som do kuchyne, aby som tam doniesol pohár"_.

(However, this sentence is questionable from the logical point of view ...).




Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Q5: Or in Slovak should I simply regard opak. as a sub-class of nedok.? And it is just a question of marking system, because the dictionary could also state a word like nedok.+opak.? And never like dok.+opak.?


Only nedok.+opak. seems to be logical... But I am not perfectly sure, because the verbs sometimes have their implicit meaning and/or aspect .... (At the moment I am not able to give you any meaningful example)


----------



## Concise

So, I am here with it:



Sobakus said:


> separate *syntactic constituents* (objects, complements, adjuncts) from aspect, i.e. *how the action is metaphorically conceived from the inside.*


I got it.


Sobakus said:


> There's another difficulty, namely that this verb can't be used perfectively in Russian


Will remember…


Sobakus said:


> but the paradigm of _pôjdu_ is used in the past (_pošёl, pošlá, pošló_).


First small uncertainty in my side: why does Sobakus mention past (tense)? A perfective verb in Slavic languages can be used in past (past form) and in the future (present form)


Sobakus said:


> But this seems only a formal difference, basically the past tense in Slovak just happens to be missing the prefix for whatever reason


Remark on prefix is clear, but again why past tense is highlighted?


Sobakus said:


> Anyway, having an object or a goal adjunct has nothing to do with perfectiveness.


Sure, clear.


Sobakus said:


> The internal structure of an imperfective verb simply doesn't have a final end-point, so _biť koňa_ means “to be hitting the horse” and the action is considered completed when you stop hitting it – no end-point or result is specified in the internal structure of the action.


Clear.


Sobakus said:


> In the same way, _ísť do práce, na koncert, zo školy_ means “to be in the process of pedestrian movement towards/from”.


Sure, we are still speaking about imperfective usage of ísť.


Sobakus said:


> Then what does _išiel som do kuchyne_ actually refer to, you might ask? Again, I don't speak Slovak, but I'm pretty sure it refers to the *start* of movement: “I've successfully started my pedestrian movement towards the kitchen; I've set off and am on my way there”. And this is the actual difficulty with Slavic verbs of movement, in that the default perfective ones, normally prefixed with _po-,_ refer to the start of movement without specifying Path, while other prefixes generally specify Path, i.e. what end-point, what final state should be reached for the action to be considered completed.


If it refers to the start then it is the perfective usage. But I dont get how the heck one can know it facing _išiel som do kuchyne _ only. Without having any context how do you know it does not express the imperfective usage, “ I was on the way to the kitchen”??


----------



## Concise

Sobakus said:


> I'm wondering though if you fully understand the points I made in my last message, namely that 1) aspectual end/goal-orientedness (terminativity) is completely separate from the verb having a syntactically expressed object or a direction/purpose adjunct, or generally from verbal (in-)transitivity, valency = argument structure etc.; and 2) that in movement verbs, the default perfective verb designates the start of movement, and this is the meaning that the dictionary is referring to, as in _*išiel* som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár._


2 was clear. I guess 1 was too, but it became a bit complicated, because you rephrased it, and I still have to understand what valency really means in grammar. Fyki I have no other knowledge than the basic grammar learnt in high school 35-30 years ago.


----------



## Sobakus

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> First small uncertainty in my side: why does Sobakus mention past (tense)? A perfective verb in Slavic languages can be used in past (past form) and in the future (present form)


The main reason is that, although dictionaries and at least one website call _pôjdu_ “bud(úci čas)” of _ísť,_ *which is imperfective,* I assumed – correctly, as far as I can tell – that this is in fact a *perfective future* form. In Russian this form is part of a totally normal, separate perfective verb _пойти́, пойду́, пошёл_ (like_ полете́ть, полечу́, полете́л_ “perf. to fly”). It seems that in Slovak, the verb suffered some violence and only its future tense remains in use, still perfective, but without a full paradigm, which is why it appears in the dictionaries in the entry for _ísť_.

This lack of a full-fledged perfective pair is precisely why _išiel_ is used in both aspects, although I'm not sure what caused what.​​A secondary reason is that past tense usage is simply the easiest way to tell perfectiveness. In BCS perfectives can even be used in the present.


Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> If it refers to the start then it is the perfective usage. But I dont get how the heck one can know it facing _išiel som do kuchyne _ only. Without having any context how do you know it does not express the imperfective usage, “ I was on the way to the kitchen”??


And here our minds finally unite in harmony, because my question to the fabric of the Universe at this stage is precisely the same  The aim of this reply was to get closer to answering it – I (successfully it seems) tried to come up with a basic sentence where different aspects would be used depending on the meaning in Russian, i.e. I tried creating a situation of aspectual contrast. The fact that *francisgranada* calls that sentence ambiguous tells me that _ísť_ is truly a biaspectual verb, but only in the past tense it seems. Russian also has biaspectual verbs, so I should have no problem in understanding the Slovak usage if I simply think of those. 2 such examples are _веле́ть/велю́/веле́л_ “to will, command”, _жени́ться/женю́сь/жени́лся_ “to take a bride”.

Judging by these Russian biaspectual verbs, as well as by the example usage of _išiel_ here and in the dictionary, context is precisely how you tell its aspect, just as if the language had no aspectual distinction at all and the only past tense could refer to ongoing as well as punctual actions. In theory, without context you wouldn't know, but in practice, 1) there's no language without context, and 2) context is almost always sufficient. When more precision is required, there's _odísť_ & co.

However, there's something that isn't clear to me:


francisgranada said:


> _"išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár" > _intuitively, two contemporaneous events. Practically it means _"iśiel som do kuchyne, aby som tam doniesol pohár"_.
> 
> (However, this sentence is questionable from the logical point of view ...).


I used @numerator 's example sentence and didn't expect it to be logically questionable.

Why _is_ it? Perhaps I don't understand the sentence correctly; does it mean “I went to the kitchen and brought the glass there”? It would essentially be one complex event expressed by two verbs, and I suppose the logical problem is that without _tam_ “there”, it seems like a sequence of two separate actions, and the second action happens after I'm at the kitchen, so I end up bringing the glass to the kitchen while I am at the kitchen. Is this correct?
Can it mean “I went to the kitchen and brought the glass here, from the kitchen”? Or is the correct verb for this _priniesť?_
Does *numerator* also see the sentence as logically questionable? Might he offer us any further clarification in our inquiries?
Finally, another test sentence. In _išiel som do parku a stretol som kamaráta_ is the meaning “I went and met (unexpectedly)”, “I went and met (I knew he was there)”, or “I was on my way to the park when I suddenly met him”?


----------



## Concise

All the sentences that I dont react to are fully clear for me.

Just some small items:


Sobakus said:


> A secondary reason is that past tense usage is simply the easiest way to tell perfectiveness


Why? But before going on let me ask whether you meant it as a general truth being valid for all the verbs.

A) If so then I dont understand you.

When I see a present form of any Slovak verbs it can be either a present tense usage of an imperfective verb, or a future tense usage of a perfective verb. And in case of biaspectual verbs the problem is that they are technically identical, they have no different forms to show their aspects, just one form .

So I dont get your point.

B) If not then you presumably referred to exclusively ísť, right?

The present form of ísť (idú & kids ;-) ) only tells us that  either “it goes now with” an imperfective aspect in present tense, or it has a perfective aspect now, but then we face a future tense usage.

Without context no chance to decide.

So practically the same as in case ´A’.

Bonus:
Pôjdu as the imperfective future tense (but bearing the typical atrribute of a perfective verb “po-/pô-”) does not play since it as a form carries just the imperfective aspect/usage.

So far so good so what? 




Sobakus said:


> In BCS perfectives can even be used in the present.



As in Hungarian.


Sobakus said:


> However, there's something that isn't clear to me:


I let it be a topic discussed by you, Slavic chaps.


----------



## francisgranada

Sobakus said:


> Why _is_ it? Perhaps I don't understand the sentence correctly; does it mean “I went to the kitchen and brought the glass there”? It would essentially be one complex event expressed by two verbs, and I suppose the logical problem is that without _tam_ “there”, it seems like a sequence of two separate actions, and the second action happens after I'm at the kitchen, so I end up bringing the glass to the kitchen while I am at the kitchen. Is this correct?


“I went to the kitchen and brought the glass there”

Yes, that's how I spontaneously interpreted this sentence, without any other context.

In other words, _"išiel som do kuchyne"_ supposes that I was not only "walking" to the kitchen, but I have also arrived there.  Now, being in the kitchen, I could not consequently bring the glass to the kitchen (from some other place) without leaving the kitchen once again ...  A simple logical way to express the idea would be "Doniesol som pohár *do* kuchyne".



Sobakus said:


> Can it mean “I went to the kitchen and brought the glass here, from the kitchen”? Or is the correct verb for this _priniesť?_


Yes, it can.  A simple practical way to express this idea would be "Doniesol som pohár *z* kuchyne".

The verb "priniesť" does not change radically the possible interpretation, however "psychologically" it could suggest better the idea that I brought the glass from the kitchen to the place where I was before going to the kitchen.

**********************************
The possibility of the two different interpretations might be due to the following (it is only an idea):

1. I perceive/view all the sentence from "where I am", e.g. from the living room. So _"Išiel som do kuchyne"_ means "I left the living room for the kitchen" and  _"Doniesol som pohár" _means "I brought the glass to the living room".

2. "_Išiel som do kuchyne" _practically supposes that I have arrived to the kitchen. From this point  mentally I perceive/view the situation "from the kitchen".  So _"Doniesol som pohár" _means "I brought the glass to the kitchen".

(My formulations are terrible, but it's a bit difficult to explain nuances of Slovak using  English  .... )



Sobakus said:


> Finally, another test sentence. In _išiel som do parku a stretol som kamaráta_ is the meaning “I went and met (unexpectedly)”, “I went and met (I knew he was there)”, or “I was on my way to the park when I suddenly met him”?


In my opinion in theory all these interpretations are possible. Spontaneously, without any context, I'd say "when I arrived to the park (then) I met my friend" (unexpectedly or not).

BTW I have a strong feeling that we are trying to explain the exact meaning of sentences/expressions that are _a priori_ ambiguous or not well formulated or not clear without any further context ...  Plus, I am not sure whether the usage of the conjunction "a" is logical or correct in all the above discussed cases ...


----------



## francisgranada

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> Using the present form, "elmegy" can be really an answer to a question made about the future using "fog"/"majd", "El fog menni?- Igen, elmegy", but if there are no precedents made in any future forms then I don't use "elmegy" to refer to future. Otherwise I would confuse my audience.


Of course. The fact that in Hungarian we can make difference between _elmegy _and _el fog menni_ is a "plus grammatical possibility". In Slovak _**bude odísť _is grammatically impossible, thus the form _pôjde _covers both _elmegy _and _el fog menni_.

****************************
In agglutinative languages like the Finno-Ugric, the verbal prefixes typically maintain their original adverbial meaning and therefore they can be used also separately. This fact explains (at least partially) the different usage of prefixes in Slovak and Hungarian.  For curiosity, see the following:

XY most elmegy = XY teraz odíde
XY most megy el = XY teraz odchádza


----------



## vianie

francisgranada said:


> _*Vlak už prichodí*_ - not used, not idiomatic.


*prichodiť* is a dialectal and bookish word

as well as _dochodiť, nachodiť, nadchodiť, obchodiť, odchodiť, pochodiť, podchodiť, prechodiť, predchodiť, schodiť, uchodiť, vchodiť, vychodiť, zachodiť_ ...

some of the *-chodiť* verbs bear also different meaning than the corresponding *-chádzať* verbs:_ už  dochodil, nachodil sa už dosť, pochodil všetky hory sveta, pes ktorý zle pochodil _etc. etc.


----------



## francisgranada

Sobakus said:


> In Russian this form is part of a totally normal, separate perfective verb _пойти́, пойду́, пошёл_ (like_ полете́ть, полечу́, полете́л_ “perf. to fly”). It seems that in Slovak, the verb suffered some violence and only its future tense remains in use, still perfective, but without a full paradigm, which is why it appears in the dictionaries in the entry for _ísť_.


In standard Slovak  _pôjdem, pôjdeš, pôjde_ ... are simply used and perceived as the future of _*ísť*. _Yes, it is still perfective as it is prefixed. The supposed infinitive _*pôjsť_  in standard Slovak is not used.

For curiosity:

In some Eastern Slovak dialects the verb _*pujsc *_ (infinitive, similar to the Polish _pójść_) still exists, as well as the forms _pošol, pošla, pošlo, etc ..._ _Pujsc _is the perfective equivalent of _*isc *_(= ísť, to go).


----------



## numerator

I am way out of my depth with the more theoretical parts of this discussion, so let me just react to a few points where I feel I do have something to contribute:

1) As for my example sentence "_Išiel som do kuchyne a doniesol som pohár":_



Sobakus said:


> Does *numerator* also see the sentence as logically questionable? Might he offer us any further clarification in our inquiries?



I meant it to mean "I went to the kitchen and brought a glass (from the kitchen)". Just what I would do if someone told me "Choď do kuchyne a dones pohár". In my mind, the action was also clearly completed.
I was very surprised to see that other interpretations are even thinkable 

2) 


francisgranada said:


> _pôjdem, pôjdeš, pôjde_ ... are simply used and perceived as the future of _*ísť*. _Yes, it is still perfective



I disagree with characterizing _pôjdem_ as (only) perfective, as you can specify the duration of the action: _Pôjdeme tam dve hodiny, _which is not possible with true perfectives (_*Vyjdeme tam dve hodiny._)

_Pôjdem_ is thus part of a happy family of _po- _prefixed verbs expressing the future: _poletím/pobežím/ponesiem/poveziem/potrvá_... except that with these other verbs, the regular composite future is also possible: _Poletíme tam dve hodiny = Budeme tam letieť dve hodiny, _while the form _*budem ísť_ is for some reason taboo.

3) Now about this pesky perfective _ísť_. What's its future tense, _idem_ or _pôjdem_? I'd say _pôjdem_. But maybe _idem_ too.
I would understand _Idem na poštu_ as referring to the present only, while _Pôjdem na poštu_ is clearly future.

But... saying _Zajtra idem na poštu po balík _seems to work just as well as _Zajtra pôjdem na poštu po balík_.
But but... it's difficult for me right now to disentangle this usage from the way imperfectives can also be used to mean the immediate/planned future, such as "_Zajtra odchádzam_". So I'll just leave it at that.

4) Does the perfective _ísť_ refer to the completion of the whole "going action" or just the completion of _starting_ the action, as Sobakus suggests, equivalent to the Russian _пойти́_?

I can see it both ways.

I can imagine reading _Ráno išiel na poštu po balík (a už ho nikto viac nevidel)_ in a missing person report but I can also imagine _Ráno išiel na poštu po balík (a potom odviezol dcéru do školy)_ in a list of someone's completed morning activities, with the package successfully picked up at the post office.

If a family member called me and asked _Išiel si už na poštu po ten balík? _I would understand it as asking about whether I have picked up the package, not merely whether I am on my way to do so. But I also admit that a more likely formulation would be _Bol si už na pošte po ten balík?_
(And for the question asking whether I have initiated movement, _Vyrazil si už na poštu po ten balík?)_

5) I feel I am reaching the limits of my linguistic intuitions here. And it's quite possible that my Hungarian-speaker intuitions are interfering with my Slovak-speaker intuitions. Even the esteemed Sobakus might be influenced by his Russian intuitions.
Perhaps other foreros who grew up speaking only Slovak may want to chime in.


----------



## Concise

numerator said:


> _Pôjdem_ is thus part of a happy family of _po- _prefixed verbs expressing the future: _poletím/pobežím/ponesiem/poveziem/potrvá_... except that with these other verbs, the regular composite future is also possible: _Poletíme tam dve hodiny = Budeme tam letieť dve hodiny, _while the form _*budem ísť_ is for some reason taboo


Today I met with “popláva” while checking whether there was a perfective pair of plávať (no there wasn’t) and I also felt myself to be in this happy family for a moment.


----------



## Concise

Sobakus said:


> For ex. _po-_ often means “to do for a time and then stop”, so it's likely to be unmarked with verbs that have no natural end-point (states/activities). It doesn't look like you mind being stuck in a dictionary any way  (me neither, reading a monolingual dictionary is a great way to build the mental lexicon)



I was searching for a straightforward answer to the question what the very exact difference is between poutierať sa and utrieť sa (note: it is clear that utierať sa is the primary imperfective, utrieť sa is the primary perfective), in other words what the prefix po- adds to the meaning of the primary perfective verb.

And I found this book, https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-Case-of-Slavic.pdf?origin=publication_detail which seemed to be a precious resource, at least to me, so I decided to share it, maybe it will be useful for somebody else, too.


Although there is a full chapter, namely chapter 5 dedicated to po-, until now I have not figured which option I should choose.

First I thought it could not be the pure perfectivising po-, because a primary perfective verb exists (utrietť sa), so maybe it has a diminutive meaning, that is the act of drying using a towel was far from perfect, it was just a bit of drying made in a hurry.

But having checked the online dics Slovenské slovníky I started to feel that is acts in a multiple way, both as pure perfectivising po-, at least it confirms that the meaning of poutierať is exactly the same as utrieť (meaning 2) and as distributive (meaning 1).

Is my second bet OK?


----------



## numerator

I think in "poutierať sa" would go under meaning 1 (surface) in that publication.
"To towel off, all over", so to speak.


----------



## Concise

If so (see “all over”) then at least it is partly confirmed by some (not all) online dics, because these ones use the word “dôkladne” in their definitions.


----------



## Concise

Sobakus said:


> I'm sure a handful can be found, but should be super rare. I would expect there to be more bi-aspectual verbs. I think veliť is an example of the latter, despite _nedok. _– see phrases.


Today I found another one: venovať sa.

And also today I found another pearl among perfective verbs, dodržať, not because it is grammatically AC/DC, no, it is just perfective, but  “he” has 3 imperfective pairs wives: dodŕžať, dodržiavať and dodržovať.  

I hope no offence taken by my female helpers for this innocent joke.


----------



## numerator

Good catch! _Venovať _(without _sa_) is an even better example because it is commonly used with both aspects. (_Venovať sa_ is most often used intrasitively, for an ongoing or regular activity.)

And the second one is a gold mine, because many "-držať" verbs will have the same pattern, e.g. pridržať - pridŕžať, pridržiavať, pridržovať; zadržať - zadŕžať, zadržiavať, zadržovať. Interestingly, the relative frequencies of the three forms will differ for different verbs and not all verbs have all three.


----------



## Concise

francisgranada said:


> In standard Slovak _pôjdem, pôjdeš, pôjde_ ... are simply used and perceived as the future of _*ísť*. _Yes, it is still perfective as it is prefixed. The supposed infinitive _*pôjsť_ in standard Slovak is not used.



I guess I found a similar, but not identical example. 

The infinitive is “stačiť” which can have both imperfective and perfective aspects, and based on its actual aspect its future form is either “bude stačiť” or “postačí”. Slovenské slovníky

 Although “postačiť” does exist, and its future form is “borrowed” by stačiť.


----------



## Concise

It seems that today is the day of digging in the dirt of verbs to find treasures. The newly found jewel is _predpovedať _with dual aspects. I love it, because its conjugation tells you which aspect  and tense (present or future) you refer to: Slovenské slovníky


----------



## Concise

numerator said:


> And the second one is a gold mine, because many "-držať" verbs will have the same pattern, e.g. pridržať - pridŕžať, pridržiavať, pridržovať; zadržať - zadŕžať, zadržiavať, zadržovať. Interestingly, the relative frequencies of the three forms will differ for different verbs and not all verbs have all three.


And yes, a new record for me  , a verb with four imperfect forms:
“_nedok._ *dobiehať, dobehávať, dobehúvať* -a, *dobehovať”*


----------



## numerator

@Concise Congratulations on these great additions to your collection!


----------

