# Reflexive “sa/si” => “si” without any objects



## Concise

So far I thought I already understand this area of Slovak.

But today I faced “zacvičiť si”. The sentence was “Zacvičím si podľa rádia”.

Wow, no explicit object at all? In this case there is some sort of hidden object and it is why we dont use “sa”, but “si”. If so are there many reflexive verbs where I have to use “si” even if there are no explicits objects like eg. in case of “umyjem si zuby”?


----------



## Panceltic

I think this is called ethical dative and is very common in Czech and Slovak. Also in Polish (in its longer form sobie, the definition under ‘particle’).


----------



## Concise

I wish I understood what you meant!

I checked the links provided, but I have no clue how they are related to the use of “si”  which is really a dative form (as “sebe” is, too).

My only problem is that how the heck I will remember whether I have to use “sa” or “si”?

 The basic rule that I followed so far is that if the reflexive pronoun is the only object (the actor does something to himself) that it has to be in accusative case, that is “sa”. On the other hand if there is another object other than the actor itself (either part of it, ruky, or an external object trenírky), then the reflexive pronoun has to be in dative case, that is “si”.

But this rule is not valid any longer…..

EDIT: in the meantime I met “lahnúť si”, which behaves in the same way.


----------



## numerator

Ah, the beauty of reflexive particles. "Si" lives a bit in the shadow of "sa" but it has its own host of peculiarities too. You have just discovered two of them:

Like "sa", it can simply be a part of the lexical verb; the verb may be transitive, taking a direct object (_uvedomiť si, všimnúť si_) or not (_ľahnúť si_).

It can have this ethical dative meaning (roughly, "for my benefit or enjoyment"). With perfective verbs (usually prefixed za- or po-) it can be roughly translated "have a (good) X":
_zaplávať si, zabehať si, pospať si_ ... = have a (good) swim, go for a (good) run, take a good nap...
and it's very much the same as Hungarian "úszok egyet, kocogok egyet, alszok egyet...".
With imperfectives, it's a harder to translate the exact nuance, it's something like "just Xing there/around":
_idem si po ulici_ = I'm just walking down the street (minding my own business) - a bit like Hungarian "megyek, mendegélek" but not quite.
As Panceltic mentioned, this usage is very productive. But it cannot be used with verbs that already have "sa" or "si" for other reasons. So there's no _*osprchujem sa si_.

And then, of course, there is the "basic" reflexive or reciprocal meaning: _Pomáhame si. _(komu? = dative) "We help ourselves." or "We help each other".

So your rule unfortunately doesn't always work. (Not to mention that you can occasionally have "sa" + direct object, such as _učiť sa slovenčinu_.) But I don't have any simple replacement for it. Just study a lot of examples and enjoy it (_študuj si príklady... a užívaj si to_).

---
(An extra bonus is the homophony with _si_ = "you are", which can add a whole other layer of confusion sometimes.)


----------



## Concise

Now I understood ethical dative better, unfortunately I could not understand it without the examples, but I feel there is no other rule than memorizing all the reflexive verbs, whether they go with “sa” or with “si”, or both.

I feel it because “naraňajkovať sa” could be an ethical dative, too, since 



numerator said:


> It can have this ethical dative meaning (roughly, "for my benefit or enjoyment")



Having a breakfast is really something being done for one’s benefit. But why doesnt go with “si”? Why? Because there is no rule. I can say it goes with “sa”, because it is an ethical accusative .

Am I right? I mean the best way is to memorize them.


----------



## numerator

Let's take _jesť_ as a simpler example. _Najedol som sa _really means a change of state - I was hungry and now I'm _najedený_.
_Zajedol som si_, on the other hand, means that I did dome eating for pleasure - I didn't have to start out hungry and didn't have to end up full. 

You get the same pattern with _raňajkovať_, _obedovať, večerať._ For some reason, _zaraňajkovať si_ is rarer than _naraňajkovať sa_, but it still exists: Slovenské slovníky

So, I think that, as with all language phenomena, there is _some _logic behind the use of these particles - some verbalizable rules, some hard-to-verbalize correlations and some outright randomness.


----------



## Concise

I see. So you say when I saw “zacvičím si” in my book, it implied that the exercises were done for the sake of some pleasure/joy and even “(za/???)cvičím sa” would have been possible there, but the latter case would have implied some sort of obbligation etc, anything but not pleasure?

And the same goes with “lahnúť si”?


----------



## numerator

> “zacvičím si” in my book, it implied that the exercises were done for the sake of some pleasure/joy


Yes. _Za_+verb+_si_ often has this meaning, it can be used with many verbs.
A neutral way to say "I exercise" without such a nuance would be _cvičím_.



> “zacvičím sa” would have been possible there


Erm, no. _Zacvičím sa _would be possible in a different meaning: "I become trained", related to _zacvičiť niekoho_ "to train someone". (This might mean that someone trains me, or I train myself, or I just simply grow by experience... the _sa_ form does not make this explicit.) Again, this is a very productive way of using _sa _that's good to remember.

_Ľahnúť_ _si_ is a somewhat different case, because the _si _has become part of the dictionary form_. _Perhaps it does convey a slight semantic nuance of "easing oneself into a comfortable position" - but it's pretty much just part of the verb, although it is also possible to say just _ľahnúť_, without _si_. And there is no form *_ľahnúť sa_. But you can say _položiť sa, uložiť sa _- "to lay oneself down" - related to the transitive verbs _položiť, uložiť._

Interestingly, _sadnúť si_ is pretty much a perfect synonym of _posadiť sa_.

---

So... it's probably best to memorize those verbs where _sa_ or _si_ are part of the dictionary form, to learn some frequent phrases (_umyť si zuby, obliecť si kabát, zlomiť si nohu..._) and to know the productive uses of _sa_ and _si_ that can be used with almost any verb.


----------



## morior_invictus

> *N:* –, *G:* seba, *D:* sebe/si, *A: *seba/sa, *L:* sebe, *I:* sebou


slovnik.juls.savba.sk has the following on _*si*_:

I. v plných tvaroch vyjadruje predmet alebo iné bližšie určenie slovesného deja, ak sú totožné s podmetom deja (both *sa/si*)

II. *sa* (with _slovesá v neprízvučnom tvare_):

_[...]_

III. *si* (with _slovesá v neprízvučnom tvare_):

1. zastupuje predmet v 3. p.: vyjadruje, že sa niečo deje *na* *osoh alebo *na *škodu činiteľa *deja (prospechový datív, dativus commodi/incommodi, benefactive/malefactive dative)*(**sebe, pre seba)*: _kúpiť si, želať si niečo, nájsť si dievča_ [to get oneself a girlfriend / to obtain a girlfriend "for oneself" - who will either turn out to be to their advantage/benefit or to their disadvantage/annoyance/harm...]

2. vyjadruje *reciprocitu* *(**sebe navzájom, jeden druhému)*: _prisahali si vernosť_ [they swore loyalty to each other/to one another...]

3. vyjadruje *privlastňovanie** (svoj)*(privlastňovací datív, dativus possessivus, possessive dative): _umývať si oči_ [to wash one's own eyes - not someone else's]

4. vyjadruje expresívne *osobný záujem* na deji (datív etický, dativus ethicus, ethical dative)(denotes *personal interest in the fact stated*): _spievať si, pískať si; vzdychnúť si, zajesť si, pospať si, zatancovať si;_

5. ako *stála* formálna *súčasť slovesa*/niektorého jeho významu (reflexiva tantum): _*ľahnúť si*, domyslieť si, spomenúť si na niečo, zakladať si na niečom;_


----------



## Concise

You’ll are very kind! Thanks a bunch.

I guess I have to revert to this thread many times in the future.


----------



## Concise

Some more reactions:



numerator said:


> Not to mention that you can occasionally have "sa" + direct object, such as _učiť sa slovenčinu_.


It is just a bet, but cant we say that here there is the folllowing case?


II. pri slovesách v neprízvuč. tvare sa má tieto funkcie:
1. pri prechodných slovesách zastupuje predmet v 4. páde;
a. vyjadruje, že činiteľ deja zasahuje činnosťou sám seba (pri životnom podmete)


numerator said:


> Just study a lot of examples and enjoy it (_študuj si príklady... a užívaj si to_).



Can you specify please that what rule/approach you applied in the above case? Reflexive? Or intended own’s benefit? Or prospective benefit?


numerator said:


> A neutral way to say "I exercise" without such a nuance would be _cvičím_.


Simply cvičím or can it be also cvičím sa?


numerator said:


> Interestingly, _sadnúť si_ is pretty much a perfect synonym of _posadiť sa_.



Is it really a perfect one? I just wonder that the first emphasizes the intended benefit, while the latter implies less emotion, doesnt it?



numerator said:


> it's probably best to memorize those verbs where _sa_ or _si_ are part of the dictionary form


It is really my problem, because now I feel that my dictionary makes si/sa part of the verb too many times. Maybe it is Slovak as a language in fact, maybe it sometimes simply shows optional si/sa. I will doublecheck it in the future using the online Slovak resource you both proposed me.


morior_invictus said:


> prospechový datív, dativus commodi/incommodi, benefactive/malefactive dative


It became my favourite one. 



morior_invictus said:


> ako *stála* formálna *súčasť slovesa*/niektorého jeho významu (reflexiva tantum)


And I learnt another fancy expression after pluralia tantum, and dativ etický, it is reflexiva tantum:




> “5. ako _stála_ formálna súčasť slovesa/niektorého jeho významu (reflexiva tantum): _ľahnúť si, domyslieť si, spomenúť si na niečo, zakladať si na niečom;”_



In my printed Slovak-Hungarian dictionary there is “ľahnúť (si)” and the explanations of the dictionary says that brackets mark a situation when the contents between brackets can be omitted without causing any problems.

Can we say that my dictionary is wrong? Above it was said that “ľahnúť si” is a rigid term, a reflexiva tantum

+1

_My languague book (Slovak textbook) says “správim si poriadok”._

Since my dictionary says that the basic form is just “správiť” without si/sa I dare say that in this case we can say it is just a simple reflexive version of správiť?

+2
_
as I sidenote I have another bet regarding imperfective and perfective words, independently whether there are reflexive or not. During checking (in my printed dictionary)  the words that we have been discussed in this thread I saw that in many cases sometimes there is just either a perfective or imperfective version of a verb beginning with na- and/or za-._

 If there was just one with na-, it seemed to always be perfective.

Can we say that when I see only a perfective verb starting with na-m(and its imperfect pair is missing) it implies that the original verb without na- is an imperfective one?

I also tend to think that it is much more common with za- that I will find both perfective and imperfective versions than with na-. 

In other words as regards na- it is much more common there is only the perfective version (of course with some exceptions like there are both nakúpiť and nakúpovať)


----------



## numerator

Yes, I suppose _učiť sa_ belongs to this category:


> *1.* pri prechodných slovesách zastupuje predmet v 4. páde;
> a. vyjadruje, že činiteľ deja zasahuje činnosťou sám seba (pri životnom podmete)


Although... it seems that membership in category 12:


> *12.* ako formálna príklonka ukazujúca na subjekt


depends mostly on whether the verb with _sa_ has its own distinct meaning, so it's up to you whether you think "learning" is basically the same as "teaching yourself", or sufficiently different.

And since _učiť_ is special (unique?) in that it takes two direct objects, _učiť sa_ is also special in that you can encounter _sa_+direct object.



> Can you specify please that what rule/approach you applied in the above case? Reflexive? Or intended own’s benefit? Or prospective benefit?


_študuj si_ = benefit (*III.* 1.) but also having fun (*III.* 4.)
_užívaj si_ = fixed part of the verb (*III. *5.)



> Simply cvičím or can it be also cvičím sa?


Well...  To say "I exercise, I do exercises" you simply say _cvičím _(intransitive).
The verb also has a transitive version _cvičiť niekoho_, meaning "to train someone"; and so _cvičím sa_ means "I train myself" (_v niečom_ = in something).
There's also the transitive _cvičiť niečo_, "to practise an activity" (_cvičiť skoky do vody_) but this will have no reflexive version since you cannot be identical to the activity you practise...
(And unlike _učiť_, _cvičiť_ cannot have both kinds of direct objects at teh same time.)
Slovenské slovníky

(I'll come back to the rest of your questions a bit later )


----------



## francisgranada

Tisztul_A_Visztula said:


> ... I feel there is no other rule than memorizing all the reflexive verbs, whether they go with “sa” or with “si”, or both.
> 
> I feel it because “naraňajkovať sa” could be an ethical dative, too,  .....


No, there is a logic behind "sa" and "si",  and “naraňajkovať sa” is not an ethical dative ...

The substance is that grammatically _*si*_ is always dative and _*sa*_ is always accusative, independently whether these pronouns are used in _true _reflexive sense or in an _ethical _or _figurative or emphatic _or whatever sense. Instead of repeating what has already be told by other foreros, I'll try to give you some examples with the literal translations, even if they are not idiomatic in Hungarian.

Dative
Umyjem *si* zuby - "megmosom magam*nak* a fogakat" (=megmosom a fogaimat, fogat mosok)
Ľahnem *si *- "lefekszem magam*nak*"
Zacvičím *si* - "tornászni fogok magam*nak*"
Všimol som *si* - "megfigyeltem magam*nak*" (=észre vettem)

Accusative
Naraňajkujem *sa* - "megreggelizem magam*at*" (=megreggelizek)
Všimol som *sa* - "megfigyeltem magam*at*"
Cvičím *sa *- "gyakorlom magam*at*" (=gyakorlok)
Umývam *sa* - "mosom magam*at*" (=mosakszom)

I repeat: my Hungarian translations here serve only for illustration, they are not necessarily idiomatic or  used in Hungarian, but I think literal translations can help to understand the logic behind the usage of the pronouns *si *and *sa*.


----------



## numerator

@Tisztul_A_Visztula Getting back to the rest of your questions:

About _ľahnúť (si)_ and _sadnúť (si) -_ the _si_ particle may have originally had a distinct "for one's own benefit/pleasure/comfort" meaning at some point in the past - I don't know for sure, I haven't checked - but if it did, this has eroded to the point that dictionaries list the forms with and without _si_ as synonyms. So, in this sense, there is the verb wihout _si _and the verb with the _si_ firmly attached (reflexivum tantum), and they mean the same. That said, it is interesting to note a few things:

- Talking about people or animals, the verbs with _si_ are much more common. (Except _Ľahni!_ and _Sadni!_ used as commands for dogs.)
- Talking about inanimate things sagging, descending etc., it's always without _si: Obilie ľahlo. Na mesto sadla tma.
-_ As I was writing my earlier post about_ sadnúť si_ and _posadiť sa_, I was going to say that _sadnúť si v posteli _(to sit up in bed) sounds somewhat less good to me than _posadiť sa v posteli_, because it's a move to a less comfortable position... But then I checked dictionaries and googled actual usage and realized that this difference is so slight, it's actually illusory...

In contrast, with the verbs _ležať_ and _sedieť_, the basic (_si_-less) forms are neutral and _ležať si_ and _sedieť si_ have this predictable ethical-dative meaning "just lying/sitting there" (and so they will not be listed in dictionaries as verbs on their own right).

Whether your dictionary is overzealous and lists too many verbs with _sa_ and _si_ as separate entries, I can't tell (not knowing your dictionary), but perhaps the authors felt that the forms are frequent enough to merit their own entry, or that they have a special meaning, not just composed of the meaning of the verb and the meaning of _sa_ or _si_.

As @francisgranada pointed out, usually there is a component of meaning relating to _sa_ or _si_ that one can tease out. The difficulty is knowing when the particle is obligatory, when it is optional, how strong a meaning it carries, and which of the several possible meanings it is (as we have seen, the _sa_ in _Aký pán sa je?_ turned out not to be reflexive).

For example, the _si_ seems quite justifiable in _všimnúť si, uvedomiť si, zapamätať si _(after all, you are making a mental note to yourself), but why is it obligatory? And why is it not there in _zbadať _or _spozorovať_? So, expect to find patterns but not total predictability.


----------



## numerator

Oh, and you are right about _Spravím si poriadok_ (or, with a different word, _Upracem si_ - Slovenské slovníky). It means tidying up for my own benefit, or in my own space.


----------



## Concise

numerator said:


> Obilie ľahlo. Na mesto sadla tma.


These are really nice sentences  to remember. A ja som rád že to som sa učil z prvej ruky z Numeratora. 



numerator said:


> Oh, and you are right about _Spravím si poriadok_ (or, with a different word, _Upracem si_ - Slovenské slovníky). It means tidying up for my own benefit, or in my own space.



Thanks to God, I needed some success in the field of si/sa.


On the other hand did you intentionally skip question +2?


----------



## numerator

> On the other hand did you intentionally skip question +2?


Erm, yes ... I felt it was leading us too far afield, with verb prefixes and (in)perfectiveness. That really merits its own thread.
But to give at least a short answer: No, I don't think you are on the right track there.


----------



## Concise

It was a good answer, because in this case I can close my open issues. 

Eg. I will try not to care with the phenomenon that in the dictionary there are upratať and upratovať, so a pair of dok. and nedok., while I can see only spraviť, which is dok.


----------



## numerator

Oh, I didn't say it was an uninteresting question! Just that I'd rather not confuse future readers by discussing it in a "sa/si" thread. But, if you'd like to start a new thread...


----------



## Concise

Yes, persze, I just needed an excuse to suspend the collection of more grammatical nuances for a while, because I have to digest those you all taught here to me. 

But you can be sure I’ll be back later.


----------

