Talk:Grammatical aspect in the Slavic languages

Split

There was a split tag in Grammatical aspect asking to split to this article. However this article already existed but seemed to be talking about aspect in Russian. Therefore, I copied the large section into the main article and moved the original into a subsection Aspect in Russian. Hope this helps Op47 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Być

"Być" (to be) is (formally) a perfective word, at least in polish, and it do have imperfective equivalent ("bywać"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.92.43 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparing Polish and Russian

The section beginning with "Aspect in Slavic is a superior category in relation to tense or mood, etc." seems to me to be incorrect.

I put this in the Talk page because I'm not a native speaker of either Russian or Polish, although I understand both, and I don't feel completely sure. I think the Russian examples are not always correct (some of those in Polish may not be either, but I could not venture so far as to state so in an unqualified way). For instance, писаный should be писаемый ("being written" as opposed to "already written", написанный).

Also, pisanie - napisanie / писание - написание are not Gerunds but Verbal Nouns — indicating the action expressed in the verb root. The couple means "the action of writing" and "the thing (having been) written" or "the completed action of having written or writing".

In English, the Gerund, the Verbal Noun and the Verbal Adjective usually have the same form, but they should be kept distinct when talking about other languages. Eg "Loving is better than hating" (Noun); "Being insane, he went into politics" (Gerund); "He was a loving husband" (Adjective). In my native language (Italian), the Infinitive would be used as a Verbal Noun (Amare è meglio che odiare), a Gerund in the second sentence (Essendo pazzo, si mise in politica) and a Present Participle in a sentence approaching the third (Era molto amante della musica, "He was very fond of music"). The three forms are not interchangeable. (In Spanish, the Present Participle can often by replaced by a Gerund, but not the Infinitive as Verbal Noun.)

I hope someone with more self-assurance than me will correct the mistake—if it is a mistake. Pan Brerus (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Östen Dahl

His Tense and Aspect Systems might be of interest. 37.47.237.29 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfective counterparts for "chodzić" and "nosić"

As a native Polish language speaker, I feel it natural to form perfective verbs "pochodzić" (to walk for a certain amount of time, eg. "pochodzę sobie po mieście" - "I will walk a bit in the city without any particular aim") and "ponosić" (to carry for a certain amount of time, eg. "jak trochę ponosi ten plecak, to zobaczy, jaki on ciężki" - "when he will carry this bag a bit, he will realise how heavy it is"). The PWN Polish Language Dictionary confirms my intuitions (by the way, definitions for "pochodzić" as an imperfective verb, meaning "to come from", are also given, and I cannot find a perfective counterpart for this one) : https://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/pochodzi%C4%87.html 90.88.172.3 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Almost

This article currently begins with: "In almost all modern Slavic languages..."

However, it doesn't seem to clarify why it says "almost". Are there exceptions? If there are, I am either missing them, or they are not listed. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Intellectual history

Hey @ThaesOfereode, nice work on the article! It really reads more like an encyclopedic entry than a random assortment of facts. As you saw, I added a sentence about the history of the term. It was lost in the update to the current version of the article. Do you think something similar could be added to this version? Aspets (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, Aspets! I don't have a problem with reintroducing the information you provided at all. The reasons I removed it though were threefold: it's a bit old, I couldn't verify it, and I thought it was a little oblique to the topic. The citation was also a little vague. Do you have the page numbers where that specific information is found? Is Reiff the same person cited by Binnick? If I can't verify that Reiff first translated the term in 1853, us saying so would, I think, constitute a clear WP:SYNTH violation. I'm planning to do a little more work on the page to get it to GA later on, so I'm happy to let a reviewer decide its pertinence, provided we can square away the rest of the verifiability stuff.

By the way, instead of doing writing <ref name="Blank"></ref>, you can just write <ref name="Blank" /> or {{r|Blank}}. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips on citation. It is a very convoluted system to write with, compared to the niceties when reading Wikipedia articles. The citation I introduced in the previous version was indeed very old and written in Danish, so it may not be ideal for the English Wikipedia. However, I can try to find the information in an updated English source. Specifically, it's interesting that Vater may have (this is Bröndal's interpretation) been the first person to recognize a perfective-imperfective split, and Reiff was the first to use the word aspect for this. Reiff wrote in French, so he is not the 1853 date that you mention. If my memory is correct, Reiff wrote a few decades before the 1850's. Again, I'll try to find a more up-to-date source, preferably in English. Aspets (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem. If you do find a good source on the topic, please feel free to add it. You may have more luck if you have access to the Wikipedia Library too, especially if you speak a language other than English. It looks like you might be short on edits, but that's a problem that can be easily rectified! ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)