Why does Russian not make motion verb forms extensible ????
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:25 pm
??WHY?? do Russians, in their language, choose to ???NOT?? make the forms used for action verbs extensible to other verbs as a means of expression?
So, speaking of only indicative mood, for instance, for "to go (on foot)" there is
ходить imperfective aspect; indefinite form
-----------past, present, and future tense, all marked by inflections in sense of a true definition of tense
идти imperfective aspect; definite form
-----------past, present, and future tense, all marked by inflections in a sense of a true definition of tense
пойти perfective aspect
--------- past, and future tense, all marked by inflections in a sense of a true definition of tense.
So, to OVERSIMPLIFY for the sake of argument, we use ходить when we are encoding the fact that we choose to draw emphasis to the process as a whole and not the execution of an instance of it.
идти...we encode to draw emphasis to the fact that we are dealing with some stage of execution other than completion...present, past, future...something that is, was, will be underway but not necessarily completed
поити - we encode to draw emphasis to the fact that we are dealing with some aspect of completion of something that had been or will be underway....past or future. (...it has been completed or will be completed in the statement of interest)
Ok....so given THAT system for motion verbs of which the main ones are fourteen sets, or so, ??WHY?? do Russians NOT have this system for many, if not all kinds of NON-motion verbs. It SEEMS like the paradigm could be extensible
I can see where it would NOT apply to a verb like "understanding".....maybe the lines of delineation are hazy as to when "understanding" is .... We CAN talk about "understanding this period of history" as a process, but we don't use it in the iterative sense. "Every year I understand"...we can say "Every year I undergo some level of greater understanding of". And it would be hard to talk about "understanding" as a completed process, but we DO say "I already understand this", or "I will understanding this".......So it SEEMS that there COULD be a form
понимать- imperfective aspect, "indefinite form"
???*****???? - imperfective aspect, "definite form" "Little by little he is understanding what I am saying", "When he was [in the process of understanding me], the bomb fell on the building across the street", "tonight he will understand completely", "he understood completely".
понять - perfective aspect
It seems that this verb, even being abstract, COULD merit an imperfective aspect, definite form.
But even more tangibly, it seems like for "to pour" there could be an imperfective aspect, definite form
наливать imperfective aspect..."indefinite form"
???****??? imperfective aspect...."definite form"
налить perfective aspect
What is really the difference between a motion process and an non-motion process, to the extent that one merits an additional representation and the other does not? And why are only selected motion processes chosen to have the additional form (pour, to my way of thinking, could be a motion verb)?
So, speaking of only indicative mood, for instance, for "to go (on foot)" there is
ходить imperfective aspect; indefinite form
-----------past, present, and future tense, all marked by inflections in sense of a true definition of tense
идти imperfective aspect; definite form
-----------past, present, and future tense, all marked by inflections in a sense of a true definition of tense
пойти perfective aspect
--------- past, and future tense, all marked by inflections in a sense of a true definition of tense.
So, to OVERSIMPLIFY for the sake of argument, we use ходить when we are encoding the fact that we choose to draw emphasis to the process as a whole and not the execution of an instance of it.
идти...we encode to draw emphasis to the fact that we are dealing with some stage of execution other than completion...present, past, future...something that is, was, will be underway but not necessarily completed
поити - we encode to draw emphasis to the fact that we are dealing with some aspect of completion of something that had been or will be underway....past or future. (...it has been completed or will be completed in the statement of interest)
Ok....so given THAT system for motion verbs of which the main ones are fourteen sets, or so, ??WHY?? do Russians NOT have this system for many, if not all kinds of NON-motion verbs. It SEEMS like the paradigm could be extensible
I can see where it would NOT apply to a verb like "understanding".....maybe the lines of delineation are hazy as to when "understanding" is .... We CAN talk about "understanding this period of history" as a process, but we don't use it in the iterative sense. "Every year I understand"...we can say "Every year I undergo some level of greater understanding of". And it would be hard to talk about "understanding" as a completed process, but we DO say "I already understand this", or "I will understanding this".......So it SEEMS that there COULD be a form
понимать- imperfective aspect, "indefinite form"
???*****???? - imperfective aspect, "definite form" "Little by little he is understanding what I am saying", "When he was [in the process of understanding me], the bomb fell on the building across the street", "tonight he will understand completely", "he understood completely".
понять - perfective aspect
It seems that this verb, even being abstract, COULD merit an imperfective aspect, definite form.
But even more tangibly, it seems like for "to pour" there could be an imperfective aspect, definite form
наливать imperfective aspect..."indefinite form"
???****??? imperfective aspect...."definite form"
налить perfective aspect
What is really the difference between a motion process and an non-motion process, to the extent that one merits an additional representation and the other does not? And why are only selected motion processes chosen to have the additional form (pour, to my way of thinking, could be a motion verb)?