Can you use “едать” and “игрывать” in the present and future tenses?Is there a future tense in Russian?Future in the PastThe present tense in Russian storytellingDirectionality of prefixed verbs of motion in present and futureWhy do verbs in past tense—and not other parts of speech—have gender?Is past tense + бы mandatory in the clause following a conditional clause with “если бы”?Case of complements in RussianWhat's up with объять?Why use the present imperfective “отвечаем” instead of the future perfective “ответим”?Subtleties of choosing the sequence of tenses in Russian
Can you pick an advanced rogue talent with the extra rogue talent feat?
Mark command as obsolete
The meaning of the Middle English word “king”
Will the volt, ampere, ohm or other electrical units change on May 20th, 2019?
How to make a not so good looking person more appealing?
Given 0s on Assignments with suspected and dismissed cheating?
How might a landlocked lake become a complete ecosystem?
Acronyms in HDD specification
Help understanding this line - usage of くれる
What is this old US Air Force plane?
Smooth function that vanishes only on unit cube
Is it wrong to omit object pronouns in these sentences?
Resize before convert or convert before resize?
Under what charges was this character executed in Game of Thrones, The Bells?
How to disable Two-factor authentication for Apple ID?
Why weren't the bells paid heed to in S8E5?
Is it safe to use two single-pole breakers for a 240v circuit?
A case where Bishop for knight isn't a good trade
Should I communicate in my applications that I'm unemployed out of choice rather than because nobody will have me?
Can I say: "When was your train leaving?" if the train leaves in the future?
Alias for root of a polynomial
Substring join or additional table, which is faster?
Formal Definition of Dot Product
Why doesn't Iron Man's action affect this person in Endgame?
Can you use “едать” and “игрывать” in the present and future tenses?
Is there a future tense in Russian?Future in the PastThe present tense in Russian storytellingDirectionality of prefixed verbs of motion in present and futureWhy do verbs in past tense—and not other parts of speech—have gender?Is past tense + бы mandatory in the clause following a conditional clause with “если бы”?Case of complements in RussianWhat's up with объять?Why use the present imperfective “отвечаем” instead of the future perfective “ответим”?Subtleties of choosing the sequence of tenses in Russian
There is a big conflict between what I was taught here in Japan and what is written in most Russian grammar sources, and I am very curious what the native speakers have to say about it. I am especially eager to hear responses to one very specific question, which I will ask at the end of this post.
Whilst most Russian grammar sources say that there are only three tenses in Russian (past, present, future), I was taught that there are more tenses, the exact number depending on how to count. The conception I was taught appears to be partially based on or partially concurrent with the book Российская Грамматика by М. Lomonosov, who wrote:
§ 268
Времен имеют российские глаголы десять: осмь от простых да два от
сложенных; от простых: 1) настоящее — трясу, глотаю, бросаю, плещу; 2)
прошедшее неопределенное — трясъ, глоталъ, бросалъ, плескалъ; 3)
прошедшее однократное — тряхнулъ, глотнулъ, бросилъ, плеснулъ; 4)
давнопрошедшее первое — тряхивалъ, глатывалъ, брасывалъ, плескивалъ;
5) давнопрошедшее второе — бывало трясъ, бывало глоталъ, бросалъ,
плескалъ; 6) давнопрошедшее третие — бывало трясывалъ, глатывалъ,
брасывалъ, плескивалъ; 7) будущее неопределенное — буду трясти; стану
глотать, бросать, плескать; 8) будущее однократное — тряхну, глотну,
брошу, плесну. От сложенных: 9) прошедшее совершенное, напр.: написалъ
от пишу; 10) будущее совершенное — напишу.
I would like to show you an example of how I was taught to use these forms. Let's suppose I need to translate the following sentence to Russian:
I was sitting at a goban whereon great masters had played.
If I use the Russian standard past tense for both verbs, I get this:
Я сидела за доской, на которой играли великие мастера.
This Russian translation is ambiguous because it can be interpreted in two different ways:
I was watching great masters playing.
I was sitting at a historic goban whereon a number of great masters had played before.
This ambiguity can be removed by using the distant past tense, called давнопрошедшее by Lomonosov and absent in most Russian grammar sources:
Я сидела за доской, за которой игрывали великие мастера.
I was taught that this variant absolutely excludes the first interpretation because игрывали is a kind of Russian Past Perfect. It is also possible to strengthen the idea by adding бывало before игрывали (давнопрошедшее третье in Lomonosov's classification).
So it works as follows:
Infinitive: Eсть. Играть.
Past: Он ел. Он играл.
Distant Past: Он едал. Он игрывал.
Most Russian grammar sources, however, consider the forms едал and игрывал as the standard past tense of the verbs едать and игрывать, and consider the latter verbs as normal verbs defined as to eat sometimes and to play sometimes. For example, here is how Wiktionary defines the word едать:
едать: разг. многокр. к есть
In this conception, едать and игрывать do not have the connotation of distant past, that is, the connotation that the action was performed before the events that are told about.
And this difference between the conceptions prompts an ultimate test to determine which conception is true: Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
Can you, for example, say this:
Я едаю в этом кафе.
На каком сайте он игрывает в рэндзю?
Столовая больше не будет работать, поэтому буду едать дома.
Когда стану сильным игроком, буду игрывать в международных турнирах.
My logic is this: If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant past (and hence I was taught wrong things), and if you cannot, then they have such a connotation (and hence I was taught right and many Russian grammar sources teach wrong things).
I tried to find the answer by searching similar phrases in Google, and my little investigation suggests that you cannot say phrases like the examples above. I found really very few such results, whilst I found many results with phrases like я едал.
And this suggests that the true conception is the one proposed by Lomonosov and taught to me in Japan, not the one given in most Russian grammar sources.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov was a great man. Or wasn't he? The Lomonosov Moscow State University bears his name for a reason. It is hard to believe that he was mistaken. I find it much easier to believe that most Russian grammar sources are oversimplified.
So my question is: Can you use едать and игрывать in the present and future tenses, and, if not, do you agree with my conclusion about which conception is true? I am very curious what you, native speakers, have to say.
грамматика usage глаголы tense verbs-of-habitual-action
edited May 3 at 12:32
Баян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
asked May 3 at 9:29
MitsukoMitsuko
364211
add a comment |
There is a big conflict between what I was taught here in Japan and what is written in most Russian grammar sources, and I am very curious what the native speakers have to say about it. I am especially eager to hear responses to one very specific question, which I will ask at the end of this post.
Whilst most Russian grammar sources say that there are only three tenses in Russian (past, present, future), I was taught that there are more tenses, the exact number depending on how to count. The conception I was taught appears to be partially based on or partially concurrent with the book Российская Грамматика by М. Lomonosov, who wrote:
§ 268
Времен имеют российские глаголы десять: осмь от простых да два от
сложенных; от простых: 1) настоящее — трясу, глотаю, бросаю, плещу; 2)
прошедшее неопределенное — трясъ, глоталъ, бросалъ, плескалъ; 3)
прошедшее однократное — тряхнулъ, глотнулъ, бросилъ, плеснулъ; 4)
давнопрошедшее первое — тряхивалъ, глатывалъ, брасывалъ, плескивалъ;
5) давнопрошедшее второе — бывало трясъ, бывало глоталъ, бросалъ,
плескалъ; 6) давнопрошедшее третие — бывало трясывалъ, глатывалъ,
брасывалъ, плескивалъ; 7) будущее неопределенное — буду трясти; стану
глотать, бросать, плескать; 8) будущее однократное — тряхну, глотну,
брошу, плесну. От сложенных: 9) прошедшее совершенное, напр.: написалъ
от пишу; 10) будущее совершенное — напишу.
I would like to show you an example of how I was taught to use these forms. Let's suppose I need to translate the following sentence to Russian:
I was sitting at a goban whereon great masters had played.
If I use the Russian standard past tense for both verbs, I get this:
Я сидела за доской, на которой играли великие мастера.
This Russian translation is ambiguous because it can be interpreted in two different ways:
I was watching great masters playing.
I was sitting at a historic goban whereon a number of great masters had played before.
This ambiguity can be removed by using the distant past tense, called давнопрошедшее by Lomonosov and absent in most Russian grammar sources:
Я сидела за доской, за которой игрывали великие мастера.
I was taught that this variant absolutely excludes the first interpretation because игрывали is a kind of Russian Past Perfect. It is also possible to strengthen the idea by adding бывало before игрывали (давнопрошедшее третье in Lomonosov's classification).
So it works as follows:
Infinitive: Eсть. Играть.
Past: Он ел. Он играл.
Distant Past: Он едал. Он игрывал.
Most Russian grammar sources, however, consider the forms едал and игрывал as the standard past tense of the verbs едать and игрывать, and consider the latter verbs as normal verbs defined as to eat sometimes and to play sometimes. For example, here is how Wiktionary defines the word едать:
едать: разг. многокр. к есть
In this conception, едать and игрывать do not have the connotation of distant past, that is, the connotation that the action was performed before the events that are told about.
And this difference between the conceptions prompts an ultimate test to determine which conception is true: Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
Can you, for example, say this:
Я едаю в этом кафе.
На каком сайте он игрывает в рэндзю?
Столовая больше не будет работать, поэтому буду едать дома.
Когда стану сильным игроком, буду игрывать в международных турнирах.
My logic is this: If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant past (and hence I was taught wrong things), and if you cannot, then they have such a connotation (and hence I was taught right and many Russian grammar sources teach wrong things).
I tried to find the answer by searching similar phrases in Google, and my little investigation suggests that you cannot say phrases like the examples above. I found really very few such results, whilst I found many results with phrases like я едал.
And this suggests that the true conception is the one proposed by Lomonosov and taught to me in Japan, not the one given in most Russian grammar sources.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov was a great man. Or wasn't he? The Lomonosov Moscow State University bears his name for a reason. It is hard to believe that he was mistaken. I find it much easier to believe that most Russian grammar sources are oversimplified.
So my question is: Can you use едать and игрывать in the present and future tenses, and, if not, do you agree with my conclusion about which conception is true? I am very curious what you, native speakers, have to say.
грамматика usage глаголы tense verbs-of-habitual-action
edited May 3 at 12:32
Баян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
asked May 3 at 9:29
MitsukoMitsuko
364211
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:43
add a comment |
There is a big conflict between what I was taught here in Japan and what is written in most Russian grammar sources, and I am very curious what the native speakers have to say about it. I am especially eager to hear responses to one very specific question, which I will ask at the end of this post.
Whilst most Russian grammar sources say that there are only three tenses in Russian (past, present, future), I was taught that there are more tenses, the exact number depending on how to count. The conception I was taught appears to be partially based on or partially concurrent with the book Российская Грамматика by М. Lomonosov, who wrote:
§ 268
Времен имеют российские глаголы десять: осмь от простых да два от
сложенных; от простых: 1) настоящее — трясу, глотаю, бросаю, плещу; 2)
прошедшее неопределенное — трясъ, глоталъ, бросалъ, плескалъ; 3)
прошедшее однократное — тряхнулъ, глотнулъ, бросилъ, плеснулъ; 4)
давнопрошедшее первое — тряхивалъ, глатывалъ, брасывалъ, плескивалъ;
5) давнопрошедшее второе — бывало трясъ, бывало глоталъ, бросалъ,
плескалъ; 6) давнопрошедшее третие — бывало трясывалъ, глатывалъ,
брасывалъ, плескивалъ; 7) будущее неопределенное — буду трясти; стану
глотать, бросать, плескать; 8) будущее однократное — тряхну, глотну,
брошу, плесну. От сложенных: 9) прошедшее совершенное, напр.: написалъ
от пишу; 10) будущее совершенное — напишу.
I would like to show you an example of how I was taught to use these forms. Let's suppose I need to translate the following sentence to Russian:
I was sitting at a goban whereon great masters had played.
If I use the Russian standard past tense for both verbs, I get this:
Я сидела за доской, на которой играли великие мастера.
This Russian translation is ambiguous because it can be interpreted in two different ways:
I was watching great masters playing.
I was sitting at a historic goban whereon a number of great masters had played before.
This ambiguity can be removed by using the distant past tense, called давнопрошедшее by Lomonosov and absent in most Russian grammar sources:
Я сидела за доской, за которой игрывали великие мастера.
I was taught that this variant absolutely excludes the first interpretation because игрывали is a kind of Russian Past Perfect. It is also possible to strengthen the idea by adding бывало before игрывали (давнопрошедшее третье in Lomonosov's classification).
So it works as follows:
Infinitive: Eсть. Играть.
Past: Он ел. Он играл.
Distant Past: Он едал. Он игрывал.
Most Russian grammar sources, however, consider the forms едал and игрывал as the standard past tense of the verbs едать and игрывать, and consider the latter verbs as normal verbs defined as to eat sometimes and to play sometimes. For example, here is how Wiktionary defines the word едать:
едать: разг. многокр. к есть
In this conception, едать and игрывать do not have the connotation of distant past, that is, the connotation that the action was performed before the events that are told about.
And this difference between the conceptions prompts an ultimate test to determine which conception is true: Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
Can you, for example, say this:
Я едаю в этом кафе.
На каком сайте он игрывает в рэндзю?
Столовая больше не будет работать, поэтому буду едать дома.
Когда стану сильным игроком, буду игрывать в международных турнирах.
My logic is this: If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant past (and hence I was taught wrong things), and if you cannot, then they have such a connotation (and hence I was taught right and many Russian grammar sources teach wrong things).
I tried to find the answer by searching similar phrases in Google, and my little investigation suggests that you cannot say phrases like the examples above. I found really very few such results, whilst I found many results with phrases like я едал.
And this suggests that the true conception is the one proposed by Lomonosov and taught to me in Japan, not the one given in most Russian grammar sources.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov was a great man. Or wasn't he? The Lomonosov Moscow State University bears his name for a reason. It is hard to believe that he was mistaken. I find it much easier to believe that most Russian grammar sources are oversimplified.
So my question is: Can you use едать and игрывать in the present and future tenses, and, if not, do you agree with my conclusion about which conception is true? I am very curious what you, native speakers, have to say.
грамматика usage глаголы tense verbs-of-habitual-action
edited May 3 at 12:32
Баян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
asked May 3 at 9:29
MitsukoMitsuko
364211
There is a big conflict between what I was taught here in Japan and what is written in most Russian grammar sources, and I am very curious what the native speakers have to say about it. I am especially eager to hear responses to one very specific question, which I will ask at the end of this post.
Whilst most Russian grammar sources say that there are only three tenses in Russian (past, present, future), I was taught that there are more tenses, the exact number depending on how to count. The conception I was taught appears to be partially based on or partially concurrent with the book Российская Грамматика by М. Lomonosov, who wrote:
§ 268
Времен имеют российские глаголы десять: осмь от простых да два от
сложенных; от простых: 1) настоящее — трясу, глотаю, бросаю, плещу; 2)
прошедшее неопределенное — трясъ, глоталъ, бросалъ, плескалъ; 3)
прошедшее однократное — тряхнулъ, глотнулъ, бросилъ, плеснулъ; 4)
давнопрошедшее первое — тряхивалъ, глатывалъ, брасывалъ, плескивалъ;
5) давнопрошедшее второе — бывало трясъ, бывало глоталъ, бросалъ,
плескалъ; 6) давнопрошедшее третие — бывало трясывалъ, глатывалъ,
брасывалъ, плескивалъ; 7) будущее неопределенное — буду трясти; стану
глотать, бросать, плескать; 8) будущее однократное — тряхну, глотну,
брошу, плесну. От сложенных: 9) прошедшее совершенное, напр.: написалъ
от пишу; 10) будущее совершенное — напишу.
I would like to show you an example of how I was taught to use these forms. Let's suppose I need to translate the following sentence to Russian:
I was sitting at a goban whereon great masters had played.
If I use the Russian standard past tense for both verbs, I get this:
Я сидела за доской, на которой играли великие мастера.
This Russian translation is ambiguous because it can be interpreted in two different ways:
I was watching great masters playing.
I was sitting at a historic goban whereon a number of great masters had played before.
This ambiguity can be removed by using the distant past tense, called давнопрошедшее by Lomonosov and absent in most Russian grammar sources:
Я сидела за доской, за которой игрывали великие мастера.
I was taught that this variant absolutely excludes the first interpretation because игрывали is a kind of Russian Past Perfect. It is also possible to strengthen the idea by adding бывало before игрывали (давнопрошедшее третье in Lomonosov's classification).
So it works as follows:
Infinitive: Eсть. Играть.
Past: Он ел. Он играл.
Distant Past: Он едал. Он игрывал.
Most Russian grammar sources, however, consider the forms едал and игрывал as the standard past tense of the verbs едать and игрывать, and consider the latter verbs as normal verbs defined as to eat sometimes and to play sometimes. For example, here is how Wiktionary defines the word едать:
едать: разг. многокр. к есть
In this conception, едать and игрывать do not have the connotation of distant past, that is, the connotation that the action was performed before the events that are told about.
And this difference between the conceptions prompts an ultimate test to determine which conception is true: Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
Can you, for example, say this:
Я едаю в этом кафе.
На каком сайте он игрывает в рэндзю?
Столовая больше не будет работать, поэтому буду едать дома.
Когда стану сильным игроком, буду игрывать в международных турнирах.
My logic is this: If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant past (and hence I was taught wrong things), and if you cannot, then they have such a connotation (and hence I was taught right and many Russian grammar sources teach wrong things).
I tried to find the answer by searching similar phrases in Google, and my little investigation suggests that you cannot say phrases like the examples above. I found really very few such results, whilst I found many results with phrases like я едал.
And this suggests that the true conception is the one proposed by Lomonosov and taught to me in Japan, not the one given in most Russian grammar sources.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov was a great man. Or wasn't he? The Lomonosov Moscow State University bears his name for a reason. It is hard to believe that he was mistaken. I find it much easier to believe that most Russian grammar sources are oversimplified.
So my question is: Can you use едать and игрывать in the present and future tenses, and, if not, do you agree with my conclusion about which conception is true? I am very curious what you, native speakers, have to say.
грамматика usage глаголы tense verbs-of-habitual-action
грамматика usage глаголы tense verbs-of-habitual-action
edited May 3 at 12:32
Баян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
asked May 3 at 9:29
MitsukoMitsuko
364211
edited May 3 at 12:32
Баян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
asked May 3 at 9:29
MitsukoMitsuko
364211
edited May 3 at 12:32
Баян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
edited May 3 at 12:32
Баян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
edited May 3 at 12:32
Баян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
16.9k11440
asked May 3 at 9:29
MitsukoMitsuko
364211
asked May 3 at 9:29
MitsukoMitsuko
364211
asked May 3 at 9:29
MitsukoMitsuko
364211
364211
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:43
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:43
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:43
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:43
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Ломоносов жил 300 лет назад. The Russian language has changed a lot since his fabulous time. :)
Едать и игрывать are easily recognized as archaic words influencing the style.
Nowadays we have thee time-tenses (Past, Present, Future) and two aspects (non-perfective + perfective).
Perfective verbs are not used in the Present.
As the means of transforming a non-perfective verb to a perfective one are different, we can hardly say that they are two different forms of one verb.
So, aspects are one category, tenses are another category, and they are only three.
edited May 3 at 21:02
shabunc♦
22.9k453100
answered May 3 at 10:15
ElenaElena
3,498415
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:42
add a comment |
Since your original question was more generic than a specific question about two verbs, I'd venture my opinion on that broader question.
It is unfair to compare Lomonosov's grammar to the modern Russian grammar. Both of them try to explain all flexible word forms and establish a minimal group of orthogonal (mutually independent) properties, so that all possible word forms could be explained as a combination of those properties. But they approach this task from different positions.
Lomonosov introduced the concept of "one-time action" and "frequent action" - "однократные и учащательные глаголы", for example "видеть-видать", "слышать-слыхать", "гневиться-гневаться", "движить-двигать". In modern Russian we don't (well, save the verbs of movement). From the modern point of view they are different verbs rather than forms of the same verb. So, there's no such tense like "будущее однократное" nor "прошедшее однократное" any more.
Lomonosov implied that the aspect is an attribute of tense, so he had, for example, "совершенное прошедшее". In modern Russian we attribute aspect to the verb and we have pairs of "несовершенный глагол - совершенный глагол" like "глотать - глотнуть". That also reduces (halves?) the number of tenses required to explain all the verb flexion.
My point is that the number of tenses depends on how you define tense. If your definition of tense includes aspect and frequency - you get more tenses.
answered May 3 at 15:41
Igor GIgor G
713
Well, I believe that you have no right to define tenses in any way you wish, because there is a very important criterion you have to fulfill: Practically every verb should be available for use in every tense of yours. The problem with the three-tense system in Russian is that a wide class of verbs can be used only in the past tense and cannot be used in the present tense or the future tense - игрывать, двигивать, тряхивать, валивать and so on. These verbs usually end with -ивать or -ывать, have no prefix, and have the first vowel stressed.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:24
So if you consider these verbs as a separate tense rather than separate verbs, and consider the suffixes -ивать or -ывать as a means of forming this tense, you fulfill the above criterion. And by using these suffixes I can make this tense from almost every verb: махивал, лавливал, жаривал, глатывал, плёскивал, тряхивал, валивал, двигивал, игрывал and so on. Whatever I try, Google confirms I make a valid word! I am at a loss why on earth this is not officially recognized as a separate tense in modern Russian.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:27
The only valid reason I can see is that the use of such verbs gets somewhat outdated or archaic, but I have to say that by getting rid of various grammar forms you may slowly be losing your rich and wonderful language. For example, you already practically lost locative and partitive cases, which are barely used nowadays. The classic Russian writers lived and worked in the epoch when all these forms were still there. I see a huge contrast between writings of the classic Russian writers and the simplified Russian taught by my university textbooks.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:35
You have a really good knowledge and control of Russian, I must say. And you're right: those verbs (forms?) sound archaic and I don't recall ever coming across any of them in real everyday talks, nor in business correspondence. However, they are still instantly recognized by any native speaker, I suppose because such endings are preserved in folklore and in fairy tales.
– Igor G
May 3 at 17:53
1
The overall simplification of the language is well beyond the scope of this thread and this forum, I fear. Simplification is happening all the time. Try reading ancient texts in old slavonic and you'll see more aorist forms than simple past forms. Beautifully intricate and vivid? Yes. But at the same time - difficult and, alas, redundant, because the same ideas can be conveyed by simplier constructs. And, if given a choice, people tend to choose the simpliest way...
– Igor G
May 3 at 18:02
|
show 5 more comments
If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are
absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant
past (and hence I was taught wrong things)
In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time implying relatively short time spans such as (поза)вчера, (два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад, в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае.
Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix по- (not all do however) e.g. пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - буду пописывать etc.
Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet are still understandable.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov
was a great man. Or wasn't he?
Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.
All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.
The sentence
Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера
is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms играла and играли save for number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context.
answered May 3 at 10:24
Баян Купи-каБаян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:44
further clarifications are in the chat at the above link
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 11:52
@баянкупика: if that's something worth mentioning, could you please move it to your answer? This way people who come here later could see everything right in your post. Thanks!
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 12:49
@Quassnoi appreciate the suggestion
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 13:25
“Я играла за доской, на которой играли великие мастера. — Ты играла в рэндзю? — Я и сейчас [иногда] поигрываю.” sounds perfectly natural to me and something I might say myself. “Когда стану сильным игроком, буду [изредка] поигрывать в международных турнирах.” also wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m not sure if I’d use that form. In both cases, it is implied that the action happens more than once, but either sometimes/seldom or briefly (e. g., “пописываю [свою] книжку” or “почитываю журналы” might be frequent but only a short piece at a time). On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever seen “едать”.
– Chortos-2
May 5 at 22:20
add a comment |
Well, we can use игрывать, думывать, делывать in future tense. And I even do it, if (and only if) I want my speech to be unusual, kind of archaic or humorous.
So. We can say like "буду игрывать в международных турнирах", but these verbs are not absolutely normal and still do not have the connotation of distant past.
On the other hand you are right, many Russian grammar sources (especially those for schools) teach wrong or simplified things. I think, natives and foreign learners usually need to emphasis different aspects of language.
What about Lomonosov's tenses, they are now considered another way. 1, 2, 7 cases are forms of verb трясти (non-perfective) ; 3, 8 - of verb тряхнуть (same 1, 7 but for perfective verb) ; 5, 6 forms are very rare and weird, I heard them only from linguists trying express grammar of another language. 9, 10 cases are absolutely the same as 3, 8 (because написать is perfective)
Also 400 years before Lomonosov we had tenses more similar to germanic: with auxiliary verbs and participles like "have done", but they have gone too.
Thank you for your hardworking on Russian, I wish I were such a brilliant student when was learning English and Japanese.
P. S. Don't be upset, some linguists think russian vocative is going to reborn ;)
answered May 4 at 8:24
NimtarNimtar
212
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "451"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frussian.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f19524%2fcan-you-use-%25d0%25b5%25d0%25b4%25d0%25b0%25d1%2582%25d1%258c-and-%25d0%25b8%25d0%25b3%25d1%2580%25d1%258b%25d0%25b2%25d0%25b0%25d1%2582%25d1%258c-in-the-present-and-future-tenses%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Ломоносов жил 300 лет назад. The Russian language has changed a lot since his fabulous time. :)
Едать и игрывать are easily recognized as archaic words influencing the style.
Nowadays we have thee time-tenses (Past, Present, Future) and two aspects (non-perfective + perfective).
Perfective verbs are not used in the Present.
As the means of transforming a non-perfective verb to a perfective one are different, we can hardly say that they are two different forms of one verb.
So, aspects are one category, tenses are another category, and they are only three.
edited May 3 at 21:02
shabunc♦
22.9k453100
answered May 3 at 10:15
ElenaElena
3,498415
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:42
add a comment |
Ломоносов жил 300 лет назад. The Russian language has changed a lot since his fabulous time. :)
Едать и игрывать are easily recognized as archaic words influencing the style.
Nowadays we have thee time-tenses (Past, Present, Future) and two aspects (non-perfective + perfective).
Perfective verbs are not used in the Present.
As the means of transforming a non-perfective verb to a perfective one are different, we can hardly say that they are two different forms of one verb.
So, aspects are one category, tenses are another category, and they are only three.
edited May 3 at 21:02
shabunc♦
22.9k453100
answered May 3 at 10:15
ElenaElena
3,498415
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:42
add a comment |
Ломоносов жил 300 лет назад. The Russian language has changed a lot since his fabulous time. :)
Едать и игрывать are easily recognized as archaic words influencing the style.
Nowadays we have thee time-tenses (Past, Present, Future) and two aspects (non-perfective + perfective).
Perfective verbs are not used in the Present.
As the means of transforming a non-perfective verb to a perfective one are different, we can hardly say that they are two different forms of one verb.
So, aspects are one category, tenses are another category, and they are only three.
edited May 3 at 21:02
shabunc♦
22.9k453100
answered May 3 at 10:15
ElenaElena
3,498415
Ломоносов жил 300 лет назад. The Russian language has changed a lot since his fabulous time. :)
Едать и игрывать are easily recognized as archaic words influencing the style.
Nowadays we have thee time-tenses (Past, Present, Future) and two aspects (non-perfective + perfective).
Perfective verbs are not used in the Present.
As the means of transforming a non-perfective verb to a perfective one are different, we can hardly say that they are two different forms of one verb.
So, aspects are one category, tenses are another category, and they are only three.
edited May 3 at 21:02
shabunc♦
22.9k453100
answered May 3 at 10:15
ElenaElena
3,498415
edited May 3 at 21:02
shabunc♦
22.9k453100
edited May 3 at 21:02
shabunc♦
22.9k453100
edited May 3 at 21:02
shabunc♦
22.9k453100
22.9k453100
answered May 3 at 10:15
ElenaElena
3,498415
answered May 3 at 10:15
ElenaElena
3,498415
answered May 3 at 10:15
ElenaElena
3,498415
3,498415
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:42
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:42
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:42
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:42
add a comment |
Since your original question was more generic than a specific question about two verbs, I'd venture my opinion on that broader question.
It is unfair to compare Lomonosov's grammar to the modern Russian grammar. Both of them try to explain all flexible word forms and establish a minimal group of orthogonal (mutually independent) properties, so that all possible word forms could be explained as a combination of those properties. But they approach this task from different positions.
Lomonosov introduced the concept of "one-time action" and "frequent action" - "однократные и учащательные глаголы", for example "видеть-видать", "слышать-слыхать", "гневиться-гневаться", "движить-двигать". In modern Russian we don't (well, save the verbs of movement). From the modern point of view they are different verbs rather than forms of the same verb. So, there's no such tense like "будущее однократное" nor "прошедшее однократное" any more.
Lomonosov implied that the aspect is an attribute of tense, so he had, for example, "совершенное прошедшее". In modern Russian we attribute aspect to the verb and we have pairs of "несовершенный глагол - совершенный глагол" like "глотать - глотнуть". That also reduces (halves?) the number of tenses required to explain all the verb flexion.
My point is that the number of tenses depends on how you define tense. If your definition of tense includes aspect and frequency - you get more tenses.
answered May 3 at 15:41
Igor GIgor G
713
Well, I believe that you have no right to define tenses in any way you wish, because there is a very important criterion you have to fulfill: Practically every verb should be available for use in every tense of yours. The problem with the three-tense system in Russian is that a wide class of verbs can be used only in the past tense and cannot be used in the present tense or the future tense - игрывать, двигивать, тряхивать, валивать and so on. These verbs usually end with -ивать or -ывать, have no prefix, and have the first vowel stressed.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:24
So if you consider these verbs as a separate tense rather than separate verbs, and consider the suffixes -ивать or -ывать as a means of forming this tense, you fulfill the above criterion. And by using these suffixes I can make this tense from almost every verb: махивал, лавливал, жаривал, глатывал, плёскивал, тряхивал, валивал, двигивал, игрывал and so on. Whatever I try, Google confirms I make a valid word! I am at a loss why on earth this is not officially recognized as a separate tense in modern Russian.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:27
The only valid reason I can see is that the use of such verbs gets somewhat outdated or archaic, but I have to say that by getting rid of various grammar forms you may slowly be losing your rich and wonderful language. For example, you already practically lost locative and partitive cases, which are barely used nowadays. The classic Russian writers lived and worked in the epoch when all these forms were still there. I see a huge contrast between writings of the classic Russian writers and the simplified Russian taught by my university textbooks.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:35
You have a really good knowledge and control of Russian, I must say. And you're right: those verbs (forms?) sound archaic and I don't recall ever coming across any of them in real everyday talks, nor in business correspondence. However, they are still instantly recognized by any native speaker, I suppose because such endings are preserved in folklore and in fairy tales.
– Igor G
May 3 at 17:53
1
The overall simplification of the language is well beyond the scope of this thread and this forum, I fear. Simplification is happening all the time. Try reading ancient texts in old slavonic and you'll see more aorist forms than simple past forms. Beautifully intricate and vivid? Yes. But at the same time - difficult and, alas, redundant, because the same ideas can be conveyed by simplier constructs. And, if given a choice, people tend to choose the simpliest way...
– Igor G
May 3 at 18:02
|
show 5 more comments
Since your original question was more generic than a specific question about two verbs, I'd venture my opinion on that broader question.
It is unfair to compare Lomonosov's grammar to the modern Russian grammar. Both of them try to explain all flexible word forms and establish a minimal group of orthogonal (mutually independent) properties, so that all possible word forms could be explained as a combination of those properties. But they approach this task from different positions.
Lomonosov introduced the concept of "one-time action" and "frequent action" - "однократные и учащательные глаголы", for example "видеть-видать", "слышать-слыхать", "гневиться-гневаться", "движить-двигать". In modern Russian we don't (well, save the verbs of movement). From the modern point of view they are different verbs rather than forms of the same verb. So, there's no such tense like "будущее однократное" nor "прошедшее однократное" any more.
Lomonosov implied that the aspect is an attribute of tense, so he had, for example, "совершенное прошедшее". In modern Russian we attribute aspect to the verb and we have pairs of "несовершенный глагол - совершенный глагол" like "глотать - глотнуть". That also reduces (halves?) the number of tenses required to explain all the verb flexion.
My point is that the number of tenses depends on how you define tense. If your definition of tense includes aspect and frequency - you get more tenses.
answered May 3 at 15:41
Igor GIgor G
713
Well, I believe that you have no right to define tenses in any way you wish, because there is a very important criterion you have to fulfill: Practically every verb should be available for use in every tense of yours. The problem with the three-tense system in Russian is that a wide class of verbs can be used only in the past tense and cannot be used in the present tense or the future tense - игрывать, двигивать, тряхивать, валивать and so on. These verbs usually end with -ивать or -ывать, have no prefix, and have the first vowel stressed.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:24
So if you consider these verbs as a separate tense rather than separate verbs, and consider the suffixes -ивать or -ывать as a means of forming this tense, you fulfill the above criterion. And by using these suffixes I can make this tense from almost every verb: махивал, лавливал, жаривал, глатывал, плёскивал, тряхивал, валивал, двигивал, игрывал and so on. Whatever I try, Google confirms I make a valid word! I am at a loss why on earth this is not officially recognized as a separate tense in modern Russian.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:27
The only valid reason I can see is that the use of such verbs gets somewhat outdated or archaic, but I have to say that by getting rid of various grammar forms you may slowly be losing your rich and wonderful language. For example, you already practically lost locative and partitive cases, which are barely used nowadays. The classic Russian writers lived and worked in the epoch when all these forms were still there. I see a huge contrast between writings of the classic Russian writers and the simplified Russian taught by my university textbooks.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:35
You have a really good knowledge and control of Russian, I must say. And you're right: those verbs (forms?) sound archaic and I don't recall ever coming across any of them in real everyday talks, nor in business correspondence. However, they are still instantly recognized by any native speaker, I suppose because such endings are preserved in folklore and in fairy tales.
– Igor G
May 3 at 17:53
1
The overall simplification of the language is well beyond the scope of this thread and this forum, I fear. Simplification is happening all the time. Try reading ancient texts in old slavonic and you'll see more aorist forms than simple past forms. Beautifully intricate and vivid? Yes. But at the same time - difficult and, alas, redundant, because the same ideas can be conveyed by simplier constructs. And, if given a choice, people tend to choose the simpliest way...
– Igor G
May 3 at 18:02
|
show 5 more comments
Since your original question was more generic than a specific question about two verbs, I'd venture my opinion on that broader question.
It is unfair to compare Lomonosov's grammar to the modern Russian grammar. Both of them try to explain all flexible word forms and establish a minimal group of orthogonal (mutually independent) properties, so that all possible word forms could be explained as a combination of those properties. But they approach this task from different positions.
Lomonosov introduced the concept of "one-time action" and "frequent action" - "однократные и учащательные глаголы", for example "видеть-видать", "слышать-слыхать", "гневиться-гневаться", "движить-двигать". In modern Russian we don't (well, save the verbs of movement). From the modern point of view they are different verbs rather than forms of the same verb. So, there's no such tense like "будущее однократное" nor "прошедшее однократное" any more.
Lomonosov implied that the aspect is an attribute of tense, so he had, for example, "совершенное прошедшее". In modern Russian we attribute aspect to the verb and we have pairs of "несовершенный глагол - совершенный глагол" like "глотать - глотнуть". That also reduces (halves?) the number of tenses required to explain all the verb flexion.
My point is that the number of tenses depends on how you define tense. If your definition of tense includes aspect and frequency - you get more tenses.
answered May 3 at 15:41
Igor GIgor G
713
Since your original question was more generic than a specific question about two verbs, I'd venture my opinion on that broader question.
It is unfair to compare Lomonosov's grammar to the modern Russian grammar. Both of them try to explain all flexible word forms and establish a minimal group of orthogonal (mutually independent) properties, so that all possible word forms could be explained as a combination of those properties. But they approach this task from different positions.
Lomonosov introduced the concept of "one-time action" and "frequent action" - "однократные и учащательные глаголы", for example "видеть-видать", "слышать-слыхать", "гневиться-гневаться", "движить-двигать". In modern Russian we don't (well, save the verbs of movement). From the modern point of view they are different verbs rather than forms of the same verb. So, there's no such tense like "будущее однократное" nor "прошедшее однократное" any more.
Lomonosov implied that the aspect is an attribute of tense, so he had, for example, "совершенное прошедшее". In modern Russian we attribute aspect to the verb and we have pairs of "несовершенный глагол - совершенный глагол" like "глотать - глотнуть". That also reduces (halves?) the number of tenses required to explain all the verb flexion.
My point is that the number of tenses depends on how you define tense. If your definition of tense includes aspect and frequency - you get more tenses.
answered May 3 at 15:41
Igor GIgor G
713
edited May 3 at 15:48
answered May 3 at 15:41
Igor GIgor G
713
answered May 3 at 15:41
Igor GIgor G
713
answered May 3 at 15:41
Igor GIgor G
713
713
Well, I believe that you have no right to define tenses in any way you wish, because there is a very important criterion you have to fulfill: Practically every verb should be available for use in every tense of yours. The problem with the three-tense system in Russian is that a wide class of verbs can be used only in the past tense and cannot be used in the present tense or the future tense - игрывать, двигивать, тряхивать, валивать and so on. These verbs usually end with -ивать or -ывать, have no prefix, and have the first vowel stressed.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:24
So if you consider these verbs as a separate tense rather than separate verbs, and consider the suffixes -ивать or -ывать as a means of forming this tense, you fulfill the above criterion. And by using these suffixes I can make this tense from almost every verb: махивал, лавливал, жаривал, глатывал, плёскивал, тряхивал, валивал, двигивал, игрывал and so on. Whatever I try, Google confirms I make a valid word! I am at a loss why on earth this is not officially recognized as a separate tense in modern Russian.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:27
The only valid reason I can see is that the use of such verbs gets somewhat outdated or archaic, but I have to say that by getting rid of various grammar forms you may slowly be losing your rich and wonderful language. For example, you already practically lost locative and partitive cases, which are barely used nowadays. The classic Russian writers lived and worked in the epoch when all these forms were still there. I see a huge contrast between writings of the classic Russian writers and the simplified Russian taught by my university textbooks.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:35
You have a really good knowledge and control of Russian, I must say. And you're right: those verbs (forms?) sound archaic and I don't recall ever coming across any of them in real everyday talks, nor in business correspondence. However, they are still instantly recognized by any native speaker, I suppose because such endings are preserved in folklore and in fairy tales.
– Igor G
May 3 at 17:53
1
The overall simplification of the language is well beyond the scope of this thread and this forum, I fear. Simplification is happening all the time. Try reading ancient texts in old slavonic and you'll see more aorist forms than simple past forms. Beautifully intricate and vivid? Yes. But at the same time - difficult and, alas, redundant, because the same ideas can be conveyed by simplier constructs. And, if given a choice, people tend to choose the simpliest way...
– Igor G
May 3 at 18:02
|
show 5 more comments
Well, I believe that you have no right to define tenses in any way you wish, because there is a very important criterion you have to fulfill: Practically every verb should be available for use in every tense of yours. The problem with the three-tense system in Russian is that a wide class of verbs can be used only in the past tense and cannot be used in the present tense or the future tense - игрывать, двигивать, тряхивать, валивать and so on. These verbs usually end with -ивать or -ывать, have no prefix, and have the first vowel stressed.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:24
So if you consider these verbs as a separate tense rather than separate verbs, and consider the suffixes -ивать or -ывать as a means of forming this tense, you fulfill the above criterion. And by using these suffixes I can make this tense from almost every verb: махивал, лавливал, жаривал, глатывал, плёскивал, тряхивал, валивал, двигивал, игрывал and so on. Whatever I try, Google confirms I make a valid word! I am at a loss why on earth this is not officially recognized as a separate tense in modern Russian.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:27
The only valid reason I can see is that the use of such verbs gets somewhat outdated or archaic, but I have to say that by getting rid of various grammar forms you may slowly be losing your rich and wonderful language. For example, you already practically lost locative and partitive cases, which are barely used nowadays. The classic Russian writers lived and worked in the epoch when all these forms were still there. I see a huge contrast between writings of the classic Russian writers and the simplified Russian taught by my university textbooks.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:35
You have a really good knowledge and control of Russian, I must say. And you're right: those verbs (forms?) sound archaic and I don't recall ever coming across any of them in real everyday talks, nor in business correspondence. However, they are still instantly recognized by any native speaker, I suppose because such endings are preserved in folklore and in fairy tales.
– Igor G
May 3 at 17:53
1
The overall simplification of the language is well beyond the scope of this thread and this forum, I fear. Simplification is happening all the time. Try reading ancient texts in old slavonic and you'll see more aorist forms than simple past forms. Beautifully intricate and vivid? Yes. But at the same time - difficult and, alas, redundant, because the same ideas can be conveyed by simplier constructs. And, if given a choice, people tend to choose the simpliest way...
– Igor G
May 3 at 18:02
Well, I believe that you have no right to define tenses in any way you wish, because there is a very important criterion you have to fulfill: Practically every verb should be available for use in every tense of yours. The problem with the three-tense system in Russian is that a wide class of verbs can be used only in the past tense and cannot be used in the present tense or the future tense - игрывать, двигивать, тряхивать, валивать and so on. These verbs usually end with -ивать or -ывать, have no prefix, and have the first vowel stressed.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:24
Well, I believe that you have no right to define tenses in any way you wish, because there is a very important criterion you have to fulfill: Practically every verb should be available for use in every tense of yours. The problem with the three-tense system in Russian is that a wide class of verbs can be used only in the past tense and cannot be used in the present tense or the future tense - игрывать, двигивать, тряхивать, валивать and so on. These verbs usually end with -ивать or -ывать, have no prefix, and have the first vowel stressed.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:24
So if you consider these verbs as a separate tense rather than separate verbs, and consider the suffixes -ивать or -ывать as a means of forming this tense, you fulfill the above criterion. And by using these suffixes I can make this tense from almost every verb: махивал, лавливал, жаривал, глатывал, плёскивал, тряхивал, валивал, двигивал, игрывал and so on. Whatever I try, Google confirms I make a valid word! I am at a loss why on earth this is not officially recognized as a separate tense in modern Russian.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:27
So if you consider these verbs as a separate tense rather than separate verbs, and consider the suffixes -ивать or -ывать as a means of forming this tense, you fulfill the above criterion. And by using these suffixes I can make this tense from almost every verb: махивал, лавливал, жаривал, глатывал, плёскивал, тряхивал, валивал, двигивал, игрывал and so on. Whatever I try, Google confirms I make a valid word! I am at a loss why on earth this is not officially recognized as a separate tense in modern Russian.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:27
The only valid reason I can see is that the use of such verbs gets somewhat outdated or archaic, but I have to say that by getting rid of various grammar forms you may slowly be losing your rich and wonderful language. For example, you already practically lost locative and partitive cases, which are barely used nowadays. The classic Russian writers lived and worked in the epoch when all these forms were still there. I see a huge contrast between writings of the classic Russian writers and the simplified Russian taught by my university textbooks.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:35
The only valid reason I can see is that the use of such verbs gets somewhat outdated or archaic, but I have to say that by getting rid of various grammar forms you may slowly be losing your rich and wonderful language. For example, you already practically lost locative and partitive cases, which are barely used nowadays. The classic Russian writers lived and worked in the epoch when all these forms were still there. I see a huge contrast between writings of the classic Russian writers and the simplified Russian taught by my university textbooks.
– Mitsuko
May 3 at 17:35
You have a really good knowledge and control of Russian, I must say. And you're right: those verbs (forms?) sound archaic and I don't recall ever coming across any of them in real everyday talks, nor in business correspondence. However, they are still instantly recognized by any native speaker, I suppose because such endings are preserved in folklore and in fairy tales.
– Igor G
May 3 at 17:53
You have a really good knowledge and control of Russian, I must say. And you're right: those verbs (forms?) sound archaic and I don't recall ever coming across any of them in real everyday talks, nor in business correspondence. However, they are still instantly recognized by any native speaker, I suppose because such endings are preserved in folklore and in fairy tales.
– Igor G
May 3 at 17:53
1
1
The overall simplification of the language is well beyond the scope of this thread and this forum, I fear. Simplification is happening all the time. Try reading ancient texts in old slavonic and you'll see more aorist forms than simple past forms. Beautifully intricate and vivid? Yes. But at the same time - difficult and, alas, redundant, because the same ideas can be conveyed by simplier constructs. And, if given a choice, people tend to choose the simpliest way...
– Igor G
May 3 at 18:02
The overall simplification of the language is well beyond the scope of this thread and this forum, I fear. Simplification is happening all the time. Try reading ancient texts in old slavonic and you'll see more aorist forms than simple past forms. Beautifully intricate and vivid? Yes. But at the same time - difficult and, alas, redundant, because the same ideas can be conveyed by simplier constructs. And, if given a choice, people tend to choose the simpliest way...
– Igor G
May 3 at 18:02
|
show 5 more comments
If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are
absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant
past (and hence I was taught wrong things)
In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time implying relatively short time spans such as (поза)вчера, (два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад, в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае.
Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix по- (not all do however) e.g. пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - буду пописывать etc.
Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet are still understandable.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov
was a great man. Or wasn't he?
Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.
All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.
The sentence
Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера
is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms играла and играли save for number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context.
answered May 3 at 10:24
Баян Купи-каБаян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:44
further clarifications are in the chat at the above link
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 11:52
@баянкупика: if that's something worth mentioning, could you please move it to your answer? This way people who come here later could see everything right in your post. Thanks!
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 12:49
@Quassnoi appreciate the suggestion
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 13:25
“Я играла за доской, на которой играли великие мастера. — Ты играла в рэндзю? — Я и сейчас [иногда] поигрываю.” sounds perfectly natural to me and something I might say myself. “Когда стану сильным игроком, буду [изредка] поигрывать в международных турнирах.” also wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m not sure if I’d use that form. In both cases, it is implied that the action happens more than once, but either sometimes/seldom or briefly (e. g., “пописываю [свою] книжку” or “почитываю журналы” might be frequent but only a short piece at a time). On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever seen “едать”.
– Chortos-2
May 5 at 22:20
add a comment |
If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are
absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant
past (and hence I was taught wrong things)
In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time implying relatively short time spans such as (поза)вчера, (два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад, в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае.
Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix по- (not all do however) e.g. пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - буду пописывать etc.
Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet are still understandable.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov
was a great man. Or wasn't he?
Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.
All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.
The sentence
Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера
is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms играла and играли save for number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context.
answered May 3 at 10:24
Баян Купи-каБаян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:44
further clarifications are in the chat at the above link
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 11:52
@баянкупика: if that's something worth mentioning, could you please move it to your answer? This way people who come here later could see everything right in your post. Thanks!
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 12:49
@Quassnoi appreciate the suggestion
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 13:25
“Я играла за доской, на которой играли великие мастера. — Ты играла в рэндзю? — Я и сейчас [иногда] поигрываю.” sounds perfectly natural to me and something I might say myself. “Когда стану сильным игроком, буду [изредка] поигрывать в международных турнирах.” also wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m not sure if I’d use that form. In both cases, it is implied that the action happens more than once, but either sometimes/seldom or briefly (e. g., “пописываю [свою] книжку” or “почитываю журналы” might be frequent but only a short piece at a time). On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever seen “едать”.
– Chortos-2
May 5 at 22:20
add a comment |
If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are
absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant
past (and hence I was taught wrong things)
In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time implying relatively short time spans such as (поза)вчера, (два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад, в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае.
Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix по- (not all do however) e.g. пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - буду пописывать etc.
Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet are still understandable.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov
was a great man. Or wasn't he?
Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.
All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.
The sentence
Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера
is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms играла and играли save for number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context.
answered May 3 at 10:24
Баян Купи-каБаян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
If you can say like that, then едать and игрывать are
absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant
past (and hence I was taught wrong things)
In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time implying relatively short time spans such as (поза)вчера, (два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад, в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае.
Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?
To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix по- (not all do however) e.g. пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - буду пописывать etc.
Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet are still understandable.
I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov
was a great man. Or wasn't he?
Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.
All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.
The sentence
Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера
is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms играла and играли save for number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context.
answered May 3 at 10:24
Баян Купи-каБаян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
edited May 4 at 11:36
answered May 3 at 10:24
Баян Купи-каБаян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
answered May 3 at 10:24
Баян Купи-каБаян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
answered May 3 at 10:24
Баян Купи-каБаян Купи-ка
16.9k11440
16.9k11440
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:44
further clarifications are in the chat at the above link
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 11:52
@баянкупика: if that's something worth mentioning, could you please move it to your answer? This way people who come here later could see everything right in your post. Thanks!
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 12:49
@Quassnoi appreciate the suggestion
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 13:25
“Я играла за доской, на которой играли великие мастера. — Ты играла в рэндзю? — Я и сейчас [иногда] поигрываю.” sounds perfectly natural to me and something I might say myself. “Когда стану сильным игроком, буду [изредка] поигрывать в международных турнирах.” also wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m not sure if I’d use that form. In both cases, it is implied that the action happens more than once, but either sometimes/seldom or briefly (e. g., “пописываю [свою] книжку” or “почитываю журналы” might be frequent but only a short piece at a time). On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever seen “едать”.
– Chortos-2
May 5 at 22:20
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:44
further clarifications are in the chat at the above link
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 11:52
@баянкупика: if that's something worth mentioning, could you please move it to your answer? This way people who come here later could see everything right in your post. Thanks!
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 12:49
@Quassnoi appreciate the suggestion
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 13:25
“Я играла за доской, на которой играли великие мастера. — Ты играла в рэндзю? — Я и сейчас [иногда] поигрываю.” sounds perfectly natural to me and something I might say myself. “Когда стану сильным игроком, буду [изредка] поигрывать в международных турнирах.” also wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m not sure if I’d use that form. In both cases, it is implied that the action happens more than once, but either sometimes/seldom or briefly (e. g., “пописываю [свою] книжку” or “почитываю журналы” might be frequent but only a short piece at a time). On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever seen “едать”.
– Chortos-2
May 5 at 22:20
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:44
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:44
further clarifications are in the chat at the above link
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 11:52
further clarifications are in the chat at the above link
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 11:52
@баянкупика: if that's something worth mentioning, could you please move it to your answer? This way people who come here later could see everything right in your post. Thanks!
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 12:49
@баянкупика: if that's something worth mentioning, could you please move it to your answer? This way people who come here later could see everything right in your post. Thanks!
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 12:49
@Quassnoi appreciate the suggestion
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 13:25
@Quassnoi appreciate the suggestion
– Баян Купи-ка
May 4 at 13:25
“Я играла за доской, на которой играли великие мастера. — Ты играла в рэндзю? — Я и сейчас [иногда] поигрываю.” sounds perfectly natural to me and something I might say myself. “Когда стану сильным игроком, буду [изредка] поигрывать в международных турнирах.” also wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m not sure if I’d use that form. In both cases, it is implied that the action happens more than once, but either sometimes/seldom or briefly (e. g., “пописываю [свою] книжку” or “почитываю журналы” might be frequent but only a short piece at a time). On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever seen “едать”.
– Chortos-2
May 5 at 22:20
“Я играла за доской, на которой играли великие мастера. — Ты играла в рэндзю? — Я и сейчас [иногда] поигрываю.” sounds perfectly natural to me and something I might say myself. “Когда стану сильным игроком, буду [изредка] поигрывать в международных турнирах.” also wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m not sure if I’d use that form. In both cases, it is implied that the action happens more than once, but either sometimes/seldom or briefly (e. g., “пописываю [свою] книжку” or “почитываю журналы” might be frequent but only a short piece at a time). On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever seen “едать”.
– Chortos-2
May 5 at 22:20
add a comment |
Well, we can use игрывать, думывать, делывать in future tense. And I even do it, if (and only if) I want my speech to be unusual, kind of archaic or humorous.
So. We can say like "буду игрывать в международных турнирах", but these verbs are not absolutely normal and still do not have the connotation of distant past.
On the other hand you are right, many Russian grammar sources (especially those for schools) teach wrong or simplified things. I think, natives and foreign learners usually need to emphasis different aspects of language.
What about Lomonosov's tenses, they are now considered another way. 1, 2, 7 cases are forms of verb трясти (non-perfective) ; 3, 8 - of verb тряхнуть (same 1, 7 but for perfective verb) ; 5, 6 forms are very rare and weird, I heard them only from linguists trying express grammar of another language. 9, 10 cases are absolutely the same as 3, 8 (because написать is perfective)
Also 400 years before Lomonosov we had tenses more similar to germanic: with auxiliary verbs and participles like "have done", but they have gone too.
Thank you for your hardworking on Russian, I wish I were such a brilliant student when was learning English and Japanese.
P. S. Don't be upset, some linguists think russian vocative is going to reborn ;)
answered May 4 at 8:24
NimtarNimtar
212
add a comment |
Well, we can use игрывать, думывать, делывать in future tense. And I even do it, if (and only if) I want my speech to be unusual, kind of archaic or humorous.
So. We can say like "буду игрывать в международных турнирах", but these verbs are not absolutely normal and still do not have the connotation of distant past.
On the other hand you are right, many Russian grammar sources (especially those for schools) teach wrong or simplified things. I think, natives and foreign learners usually need to emphasis different aspects of language.
What about Lomonosov's tenses, they are now considered another way. 1, 2, 7 cases are forms of verb трясти (non-perfective) ; 3, 8 - of verb тряхнуть (same 1, 7 but for perfective verb) ; 5, 6 forms are very rare and weird, I heard them only from linguists trying express grammar of another language. 9, 10 cases are absolutely the same as 3, 8 (because написать is perfective)
Also 400 years before Lomonosov we had tenses more similar to germanic: with auxiliary verbs and participles like "have done", but they have gone too.
Thank you for your hardworking on Russian, I wish I were such a brilliant student when was learning English and Japanese.
P. S. Don't be upset, some linguists think russian vocative is going to reborn ;)
answered May 4 at 8:24
NimtarNimtar
212
add a comment |
Well, we can use игрывать, думывать, делывать in future tense. And I even do it, if (and only if) I want my speech to be unusual, kind of archaic or humorous.
So. We can say like "буду игрывать в международных турнирах", but these verbs are not absolutely normal and still do not have the connotation of distant past.
On the other hand you are right, many Russian grammar sources (especially those for schools) teach wrong or simplified things. I think, natives and foreign learners usually need to emphasis different aspects of language.
What about Lomonosov's tenses, they are now considered another way. 1, 2, 7 cases are forms of verb трясти (non-perfective) ; 3, 8 - of verb тряхнуть (same 1, 7 but for perfective verb) ; 5, 6 forms are very rare and weird, I heard them only from linguists trying express grammar of another language. 9, 10 cases are absolutely the same as 3, 8 (because написать is perfective)
Also 400 years before Lomonosov we had tenses more similar to germanic: with auxiliary verbs and participles like "have done", but they have gone too.
Thank you for your hardworking on Russian, I wish I were such a brilliant student when was learning English and Japanese.
P. S. Don't be upset, some linguists think russian vocative is going to reborn ;)
answered May 4 at 8:24
NimtarNimtar
212
Well, we can use игрывать, думывать, делывать in future tense. And I even do it, if (and only if) I want my speech to be unusual, kind of archaic or humorous.
So. We can say like "буду игрывать в международных турнирах", but these verbs are not absolutely normal and still do not have the connotation of distant past.
On the other hand you are right, many Russian grammar sources (especially those for schools) teach wrong or simplified things. I think, natives and foreign learners usually need to emphasis different aspects of language.
What about Lomonosov's tenses, they are now considered another way. 1, 2, 7 cases are forms of verb трясти (non-perfective) ; 3, 8 - of verb тряхнуть (same 1, 7 but for perfective verb) ; 5, 6 forms are very rare and weird, I heard them only from linguists trying express grammar of another language. 9, 10 cases are absolutely the same as 3, 8 (because написать is perfective)
Also 400 years before Lomonosov we had tenses more similar to germanic: with auxiliary verbs and participles like "have done", but they have gone too.
Thank you for your hardworking on Russian, I wish I were such a brilliant student when was learning English and Japanese.
P. S. Don't be upset, some linguists think russian vocative is going to reborn ;)
answered May 4 at 8:24
NimtarNimtar
212
answered May 4 at 8:24
NimtarNimtar
212
answered May 4 at 8:24
NimtarNimtar
212
answered May 4 at 8:24
NimtarNimtar
212
212
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Russian Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frussian.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f19524%2fcan-you-use-%25d0%25b5%25d0%25b4%25d0%25b0%25d1%2582%25d1%258c-and-%25d0%25b8%25d0%25b3%25d1%2580%25d1%258b%25d0%25b2%25d0%25b0%25d1%2582%25d1%258c-in-the-present-and-future-tenses%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Quassnoi♦
May 4 at 11:43