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
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.