Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

[Iversen]

(...) you might like the site Réimnigh.

I have so far used Verbix and my O'Dónaill grammar for that purpose, even though they aren't particularly informative when it comes to differences between the dialects. I have seen some reports concerning inaccuracies in other languages in Verbix, but I don't know whether there are problems in the Irish section. So far I haven't found out how to use it with non-Latin alphabets, but they are listed so it should be possible. And it also want you to come up with one specific search term per language, which can be either the infinitive or the 1.p. sing.. But since my dictionary normally can tell me the relevant headword whenever I meet some other weird form I have not had problems using the site for Irish too. I also used it for my rant in Old English at the top of this page.

For Russian I have an alternative, namely a big yellow Barron book with all Russian verbs, and for Serbian I can use my green Pons (even though it explains the Croatian verbs, not the Serbian ones, but my written Serbian is so bad that it hardly can become worse because of my occasional use of a Croatian verb table).

[galaxyrocker]

I can tell you there are issues with Verbix for Irish. It completely messes up syncopated verbs, for instance. So if you test "labhair", you get "labhairim" instead of the correct "labhraím".

As for Irish, there's Leabhar Mór Briathra na Gaeilge, which is like those big Barron's books of verbs except for Irish. Details all three dialects as well as the standard; it's where, as far as I can tell, the Réimnigh data has been pulled from.

[Iversen]

Point taken - I have bookmarked Réimnigh.

[Iversen]

Yesterday evening and this morning I read part of the section about verbs in the Serbian Essential Grammar from Routledge (written by Lila Hammond). Some people may see grammars as unwanted duty reading which can't be interesting or pleasurable, but it can be both - if you also look at how the descriptions are structured and why the languages came to be like they are now. And the Routledge grammars are comprehensive enough - even when essential - to contain the necessary amount of details, while still being well structured and readable. There are few historical language histories around, and those that exist are mostly written by serious scholars for serious students - not for ordinary language learners. Otherwise I would definitely own a language history for at least one Slavic language, but I 'only' own the thick book about ALL the Slavic languages by Comrie. Maybe I could find a book about Old Church Slavonic somewhere.

So I have a few remarks about Serbian verbs and how they are described in the Routledge grammar. One point is that it tends to derive the present tense forms from the infinitive, except when it is too obvious that it the infinitive which is the odd one. Maybe the reason is that the dictionaries quote infinitives rather than 1. person singular (except those that don't have an infinitive, like Modern Greek). You see this tendency most clearly in the discussion about the second conjugation, i.e. the one with e's in the present tense forms - quote:

This conjugation applies to verbs with infinitive endings in -ати/ati, -ити/iti, -овати/ovati, -евати/evati, -ивати/ivati, -ути/uti, -ети/eti, -сти/sti, -ћи/ći. In this conjugation, the present tense ending contains the vowel e.

There may be solid historical reasons for this order, but I would have put the last one first - and added that the infinitives represent a fullblown undeniable chaos with forms ending in ... (followed by the endings above). The tendency also appears in the details. For instance it is stated that a vowel is inserted in the stem of прати/prati: ја перем, ти переш etc. If you didn't know the infinitive you might have assumed an ending like *-ети/eti, because historically it would be more logical to see a vowel being lost from the infinitive , but of course this phenomenon is part of a problem complex that involves other cases of volatile vowels.

Similarly it is stated that "Verbs ending in -нути/nuti loose the y/u": метнyти/ метнем metnuti/metnem to put/place". Here I would have said that the funny thing is the insertion of an infix -yт-/-ut- in the infinitive and not the 'loss' of it in the present tense forms. There may be solid scientific reasons behind to other formulation, but given the general infinitive chaos I would prefer to see the infix in the infinitive as the thing that needs an explanation.

By the way, most verbs have 1.p. singular present tense in -м/m (as in метнем/metnem), but some have the ending -y/u (as in Russian) - like могу/mogu (I can). I have a vague hunch that I have seen some remarks about this schisma somewhere, but I have forgotten where.

SER: И онда бих желео да поновим да увек писем српски језик са ћириличним словима, јер овако могу да мислим на хрватски као 'латиница' језик - али у стварности постоје знакови корака према латинизације, као што је тешко проналазак ћириличног писања у речнику који повезује српски на језик западног језика. А рачунари са латинским кључевима су вероватно јефтинији. На срећу, постоји једна коресподенција између 1-1 између абецеда.

And speaking about Greek, ...

GR: Στις σλαβικές γλώσσες υπάρχουν απαρέμφατα (επίσης στα ρουμανικά, αν και η χρήση τους είναι περιορισμένη), али у српској граматици сам пронашао реченичку структуру која подсећа на грчки и румунски језикα:

(SER): Хоћу да прочитам тy књигy (p. 55, 'I wantto that I-read that book' - 'Θέλω να διαβάσω αυτό το βιβλίο' - 'Vreau să citesc acea carte')

Kunst133.JPG

[Daniel N.]

Let me clarify some issues raised in your previous post.

This conjugation applies to verbs with infinitive endings in -ати/ati, -ити/iti, -овати/ovati, -евати/evati, -ивати/ivati, -ути/uti, -ети/eti, -сти/sti, -ћи/ći. In this conjugation, the present tense ending contains the vowel e.

There may be solid historical reasons for this order, but I would have put the last one first - and added that the infinitives represent a fullblown undeniable chaos with forms ending in ... (followed by the endings above).

This boils down to: some verbs are irregular - you cannot guess it from the infinitive, per definition, and irregular verbs in BCMS have e-presents.

Similarly it is stated that "Verbs ending in -нути/nuti loose the y/u": метнyти/ метнем metnuti/metnem to put/place". Here I would have said that the funny thing is the insertion of an infix -yт-/-ut- in the infinitive and not the 'loss' of it in the present tense forms. There may be solid scientific reasons behind to other formulation, but given the general infinitive chaos I would prefer to see the infix in the infinitive as the thing that needs an explanation.

These verbs have -nu- in infinitive and -n- in the present tense, that's it. The -e- in present is simply the default present tense vowel. You can still see the connection in many verbs:

kih-ati (kiše) = sneeze (here historically h + j-e > š-e)
kih-nu-ti (kih-n-e) = sneeze once

Note that in some dialects it's rather kih-ni-ti (kih-n-e) with various combinations in the past etc.

By the way, most verbs have 1.p. singular present tense in -м/m (as in метнем/metnem), but some have the ending -y/u (as in Russian) - like могу/mogu (I can). I have a vague hunch that I have seen some remarks about this schisma somewhere, but I have forgotten where.

More you go to the east, more -u verbs. In Slovenia, all verbs have -m. In standard BCMS, only 2 verbs have -u. In some dialects there are less, in some more.

[Iversen]

Thanks for the clarification, which adds to the things I have written, but as far as I can see they don't really contradict them.

Regarding the e-stems, Daniel N. writes that "some verbs are irregular - you cannot guess it from the infinitive, per definition, and irregular verbs in BCMS have e-presents". Yes, and precisely therefore it is worth stressing that the thing that keeps the group together is the stem vowel e in the present tense and not the various infinitives.

As for the -нути/nuti I was actually not precise enough. The default infinitival ending is ти/ti, though in some cases the consonant has been changed to sometimes else, but not to something totally unexpected. So it was an error to call -yт-/-ut- an infix. But even when the focus only is on the vowel It is still an insert of something unexpected which calls for an explanation, and if so then it is also misleading to talk about losing it in the present. The point is that the present stem doesn't and didn't ever contain the y/u vowel. The same of course applies to endings like -aти/-ati, as in the verb kihati (and not *kineti): there isn't and hasn't apparently never been an a in the present tense stem (not even a as a thematic vowel).

And speaking about 1. person singular in the present tense (or 'future' with perfective verbs): "More you go to the east, more -u verbs. In Slovenia, all verbs have -m. In standard BCMS, only 2 verbs have -u. In some dialects there are less, in some more.".

This is a very interesting observation. I'm mostly concerned with learning a modicum of Serbian, but I have seen many -u's in Russian, and Russia definitely lies to the East of the Balkan Pensinsula. However in Bulgarian you have -а/я in the 1. and 2. second conjugation versus -м in the 3. In Polish you have typically –(i)ę in the 1. and 2. second conjugation, and em/am in the 3. and 4. conjugation. This suggests an explanation that accepts a final -m as the original normal, but for some reasons this -m should then have disappeared in some situations, dependent on the precedent sounds. I have however one page on the internet that states that the original ending actually was -o:

1st person sg. -o. (thematic: *bero. - I am taking), -mï (athematic: *damï - I am giving)
2nd person sg. -šï, -ši (thematic: *berešï - you are taking), -sï / -si (athematic: *dadsï - you are giving)
3rd person sg. -tï (*beretï - he is taking, *dadtï > *dastï - he is giving)
1st person dual -va (masculine or neuter), -vê (feminine) *bereva - we two are taking, *dadva - we two are giving
2nd and 3rd person dual -ta (*bereta, *dadta > *dasta - you / they two are taking / giving)
1st person plural -mü (*beremü, *dadmü - we are taking / giving)
2nd person plural -te (*berete, *dadte - you are taking / giving)
3rd person plural -o.ti (*bero.ti, *dado.ti - they are taking / giving)

(quote babaev.tripod))

My Comrie has probably also some informations about this, but I don't have time to study it now.

[Chung]

Thanks for the clarification, which adds to the things I have written, but as far as I can see they don't really contradict them.

Regarding the e-stems, Daniel N. writes that "some verbs are irregular - you cannot guess it from the infinitive, per definition, and irregular verbs in BCMS have e-presents". Yes, and precisely therefore it is worth stressing that the thing that keeps the group together is the stem vowel e in the present tense and not the various infinitives.

As for the -нути/nuti I was actually not precise enough. The default infinitival ending is ти/ti, though in some cases the consonant has been changed to sometimes else, but not to something totally unexpected. So it was an error to call -yт-/-ut- an infix. But even when the focus only is on the vowel It is still an insert of something unexpected which calls for an explanation, and if so then it is also misleading to talk about losing it in the present. The point is that the present stem doesn't and didn't ever contain the y/u vowel. The same of course applies to endings like -aти/-ati, as in the verb kihati (and not *kineti): there isn't and hasn't apparently never been an a in the present tense stem (not even a as a thematic vowel).

And speaking about 1. person singular in the present tense (or 'future' with perfective verbs): "More you go to the east, more -u verbs. In Slovenia, all verbs have -m. In standard BCMS, only 2 verbs have -u. In some dialects there are less, in some more.".

This is a very interesting observation. I'm mostly concerned with learning a modicum of Serbian, but I have seen many -u's in Russian, and Russia definitely lies to the East of the Balkan Pensinsula. However in Bulgarian you have -а/я in the 1. and 2. second conjugation versus -м in the 3. In Polish you have typically –(i)ę in the 1. and 2. second conjugation, and em/am in the 3. and 4. conjugation. This suggests an explanation that accepts a final -m as the original normal, but for some reasons this -m should then have disappeared in some situations, dependent on the precedent sounds. I have however one page on the internet that states that the original ending actually was -o:

1st person sg. -o. (thematic: *bero. - I am taking), -mï (athematic: *damï - I am giving)
2nd person sg. -šï, -ši (thematic: *berešï - you are taking), -sï / -si (athematic: *dadsï - you are giving)
3rd person sg. -tï (*beretï - he is taking, *dadtï > *dastï - he is giving)
1st person dual -va (masculine or neuter), -vê (feminine) *bereva - we two are taking, *dadva - we two are giving
2nd and 3rd person dual -ta (*bereta, *dadta > *dasta - you / they two are taking / giving)
1st person plural -mü (*beremü, *dadmü - we are taking / giving)
2nd person plural -te (*berete, *dadte - you are taking / giving)
3rd person plural -o.ti (*bero.ti, *dado.ti - they are taking / giving)

(quote babaev.tripod))

My Comrie has probably also some informations about this, but I don't have time to study it now.

I found that learning to associate infinitives with endings in at least the 1st person singular for present tense (e.g. -ivati/-ovati > -ujem; -ati > -am) is good enough to deal with the regular verbs without resorting to consultation of technical sources (if you're interested, I recommend Common and Comparative Slavic Phonology and Inflection: With Special Attention to Russian, Polish, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, in addition to Comrie's book). This non-technical way worked well enough when studying all of my Slavonic languages. Irregular verbs can be explained or rationalized by learning the respective etymology since by definition their full patterns can't be compared to those of regular verbs. Otherwise, I'd just memorize 'em if I couldn't find the explanation in a book.

As for the ending for 1st person singular of the present tense, the result today is that Macedonian, Slovak and Slovenian have generalized -м / -m as the ending here. In BCMS/SC, this result applies to all verbs except ht(j)eti ~ hoću and moći ~ mogu as Daniel has posted. In the other Slavonic languages it goes differently. -(j)u / -у / -ю as the ending for 1st person singular of the present tense is always* used in Eastern Slavonic languages, but it also turns up often in Czech and Sorbian. Polish can use here either the nasal -ę or -m depending on the verb while Bulgarian verbs often use -а / -я here; a few of them do use -м though.

*Belorussian даць, Russian дать, Rusyn & Ukrainian дати "to give" (perfective) are all дам for 1st person singular, although this is in reality future rather than present tense.

[Daniel N.]

This is a very interesting observation. I'm mostly concerned with learning a modicum of Serbian, but I have seen many -u's in Russian, and Russia definitely lies to the East of the Balkan Pensinsula. However in Bulgarian you have -а/я in the 1. and 2. second conjugation versus -м in the 3. In Polish you have typically –(i)ę in the 1. and 2. second conjugation, and em/am in the 3. and 4. conjugation. This suggests an explanation that accepts a final -m as the original normal, but for some reasons this -m should then have disappeared in some situations, dependent on the precedent sounds. I have however one page on the internet that states that the original ending actually was -o:

[i]1st person sg. -o. (thematic: *bero. - I am taking), -mï (athematic: *damï - I am giving)
2nd person sg. -šï, -ši (thematic: *berešï - you are taking), -sï / -si (athematic: *dadsï - you are giving)
3rd person sg. -tï (*beretï - he is taking, *dadtï > *dastï - he is giving).

The original Slavic 1st pers. vowel for most verbs was a nasal o. It turned into u in BCMS and Russian, o in Slovene, and -ya in Bulgarian.

Regarding -m vs vowel in the 1st person, it goes all the way back to Proto-Indo-European. Recall the Latin -o in the 1st pers., but ego su-m. There are various hypotheses what was first, my opinion is that -m is older, based on Sankrit and Hittite, but there's no consensus yet among linguists.

[Iversen]

I can see Comrie from where I'm sitting now, but I haven't had time to open the book. But my hunch is also that the ending -m is older.

Today I have read texts in several languages extensively because I have been sifting through a heap of travel brochures and paper maps from recent voyages to decide whether anything of it is worth keeping. For instance I read a brochure in Portuguese from the Marine Museum in Lisboa, but when I have read such a brochure again there is no reason to keep it - I have enough paper lying around. I do however keep booklets with tons of museumsand other information. Opening hours and prices may change and some museum may open and others may disappear, but it is nice to have those comprehensive lists even if there are minor changes. And I keep town plans with lots of street names because Google's maps from the internet have far too few names.

I also did an Irish wordlist based on my Alzheimer, and yesterday evening I read some more about Serbian verbs, but apart from that my main language related activity has been to copy/study a text in Slovak about the castle in Trenčina, which I visited earlier this year (picture below), and one in Polish about the torrent of genetical information about the old European populations that has come forth the last few years - a theme which I have mentioned several times in this log and in the thread about invasions from the steppes of Asia.

F5814a06_Trencin.jpg

SLA: Očakávali ste pekný obraz hradu na vrchole kopcy? Obrázka ukazuje najstaršia časť zámku, pozostatky okrúhlej veže postavenej pod Veľľkou Moravou (833-907). V strednej časti môžete zúčastniť v prehliadku so sprievodcom a okrem toho je múzeum vo vonkajšej časti hradu. Väčšina nábytku je prevzatá z múzea v meste, pretože pôvodný nábytok zmizol.

POL: Tekst polski odnosi się do doniesień o genach ludzi stepowych w Europie, ale sugeruje, że małe grupy młodych mężczyzn przybyły tutaj i spokojnie zawarły małżeństwo. Myślę, że wzięli kobiety z władzą, być może dzięki epidemiom. W przeciwnym razie przesunięte w genach nie byłaby tak dramatyczna.

POR: Visitei os museus em Lisboa (e algumas outras cidades em Portugal) em conexão com a grande conferência universal de Esperanto - número 100 na série. A próxima conferência de UEA acontecerá em Lahti na Finlândia, mas eu estou considerando se seja financeiramente possível ir à conferência poliglota no Japão - pode ser um destino caro e o Japão está longe. Eu não participei em Ljubljana, principalmente porque eu já havia participado em dois eventos de idiomas este ano, mas também porque eu não tinha uma proposta de palestra, pois eu priorizei o 'gathering' em Bratislava onde pensei ter mais nas chances de aceitação das minhas propostas. Estou bastante cético em relação às conferências poliglotas depois que a minha proposta de palestra para Nova York sobre melhorias no Google Tradutor foi rejeitada - por isso, se eu não ir ao Japão, será por causa da Nova York tanto como por causa do precio do bilhete aereo a Japão. Não obstante estou ansioso para ver os vídeos de Ljubljana, especialmente a palestra de Vandewalle sobre o uso de textos paralelos. Suponho que ele acha que seja uma boa ideia.

Debatforum.JPG

[Daniel N.]

In BCMS/SC, this result applies to all verbs except ht(j)eti ~ hoću and moći ~ mogu as Daniel has posted.

I would like to add a further refinement. In western dialects (and western here means, including western Štokavian, i.e. central and western Bosnia) it's rather moći -morem, moreš... (due to the fairly common change ž > r), so one -u verb less. This is now becoming less common due to the influence of standard language, but the form mogu was foreign to most of today Croatia 150 years ago, and even 19th ct. grammars list both morem and mogu. Even today you have very frequent nemrem = ne + morem in Zagreb and the surrounding area. So having exactly two -u verbs is an outcome of standardization.

In more eastern parts (esp. Montenegro) you can hear (non-standard) velju, viđu and maybe some others - so more -u verbs. This is obviously not random. Now, it's true that Proto-Slavic is reconstructed with all verbs having the nasal -o, except for the 5 verbs, but this is really based on the Old Church Slavic, which has been based on a fairly eastern dialect.