51 1V.-ON A DIFFICULTP IN RUSSIAN GRAYMBR. By C. B. CAYLEY,Esq. THE subject of this paper is not any complete section of Russian grammar, but a*somewhat minute point, which has appeared to me paradoxical and embarrassing in studying the moat approved prac€ical treatise thereon. I refer to a clam of verbs, in the6 form compound and derivative (or beginning with a certain preposition and ending like deriva- ‘tive verbs), which admit of 8 double accentuation, and so of a double usage, not with a casual or nondescript ohange of meaning, like our indicative, fndhtiue, but so ae to fall into two distinct categorid or ~specta,which Gretsch dkgnates the incomplete-definite and the complete-indefinite. But as these terms and others seem to require preliminary explana- tions, and as grammatical explanations are apt to be most embarrassing things when not carefully expressed, I will begin by attempting a general survey of the ‘aspects’ of the verb, especially ae they have been at times mentioned in this Society tu an hlated phenomenon in the Slavonic languages, and without any regard to their relations in comparative philology. The word ‘aspect’ I only we as the conventional translation of the Rum vidt2 (pronounced cit), which, however, means no more than ‘kind’ or ‘variety.’ It is certainly connected with &&?ti ‘to see,’ and this lends a dour to the trandation ‘aspect ;’ but this aflinity is no more significant than that of Greek &OF, Latin 8pecie8, which have nearly the same meaning 88 ‘kind.’ So there is in Ruse a frequentative aspact, as in Latin there are fiequentative verbs ; and twit0 might be considered a variety or say aspect of ‘DOCO. But the circumstance which gives prominence to the Ruseian aspects, or at least two of them, is that they seem required to make a convenient system of tenses, such as jefais, fubaiS,Jis,ferai. 52 ON A DIFFICULTP IN RUSSIAN GRAMMAR. At least, the most obvious translations of jefi, je fahis, are the preterites of two aspects, the incomplete and complete ; and each aspect hae its own infinitive. This, however, ie really very like what happens in Latin; for faciebum, feci, have separate bases, fm‘,fec, connected with the root in a very uncertain way (compare regebnrn, re^), and having separate infinitives. Only we do not treat fmere, fe&u ae the infinitives of two verbs, or even of two aspects ; we make them tenses of the infinitive, while Russian grammar allows it no tenses, which I think ia a more correct view. For either facere or fecisse may relata to the past or future, according to the context; in fact, we never venture to speak of a past or preterite infinitive, and the term present infinitive is equally inapplicable. We shall rather find that facere mostly relates to the incomplete action, fe&m to the complete; I mean the incomplete or complete at the time referred to by the governing verb ; but if this b not always clear, it is for want of another distinction which we find in Greek. Here rhmv relates to the incomplete action, ~m#&vaito the mmplete, .;\t.ct or IV&U to the indeterminate or aorist. And this word ‘ aorist ’ importa no uncertainty as to present, past, or future (for h+ i decidedly a preterite’with trifling exoep- tions in hypothetical phrases), but as to the imperfect or perfect action specialized in hov,r&v+a, Zrd+w. TO the above infinitives correspond as many imperative forms, and twice as many indicative forms, of which last one in each pair is present or perhaps future, and one preterite. So that, from a Russian point of view, there is an incomplete aspect, inf. rh-~eiv,pres. nhm, pret. &;vrrrov; a complete, inf. r~ru+biu,prea. r&+, pret. &&+J; and an indetermi- nate, inf. r&j%a~or me&, fut. +, pret. &+a or wov; and with this plan we may readily connect the subjunctive and optative moods and the participles. You will not be surprised at my counting rh+a,k&+eerv as present and preterite; the oneis elpl rerv+& ‘I am having beaten,’ or what Bishop Wilkins calls the present pf the copula with the past of the predicate; the other is 3v rm+r, the past of both copula and predicate. On the other hand, there is Gme difEcdty BY C. B. CAYLEY, Esq. 53 about cointing +in the aorist aspect; it has a separate infinitive rLj+w, though this makes not so much a real tense of the infinitive, as a kind of inchoative form. Then r6+ is a future, when analogy requires a present, which is what happens in the modern Russian complete aspect, perhaps not in the older language. Again, T+ goes with the Doric TU+~, B contracted form, of which the base is not simple rqb, but wy5-e or the like. I am, however, not inclined to believe that ~49~is a mere corruption of TIM/+&; rather there have been two forma confounded, rwta a pre- sent indeterminate, and +a future illdeterminate. In Latin there iq evidently an incomplete aspect, but the indeterminate and complete aspects are mixed together, eo that feci is ‘I did,’ a preterite aorist, or I have done,’ a present complete; still feceram is always of the complete aspect, fecisse usually 80. In Ruee we have 1). An incomplete aspect, ddlatf ‘to be doing,’ TO&; diW& ‘ I was doing,’ ddlalu ‘ I am doing,’ or ‘I do ’ (unless where ‘I do ’ implies the frequentative). 2). ,An aspect called the complete, but partly including the indeterminate, thus sddlatf to do ’ (woc;iaCrc, not mmoiqK&ac), 8ddCalt2 ‘1 did,’ but with a par- ticle ie ‘ I have done’ or ‘had done;’ 8ddlab ‘ I will do’ (used of immediate futurity, for generally we can express futurity by the auxiliary budu I shall be,’ and the infinitive of the incomplete form). As to formation, the complete aspect is sometimea simpler than the incomplete, and thus resembles the second aorist rather than the first in Greek. I shall speak presently of verbs like 8ddktlt in which the complete aspect is more complex. Note that all preterites are declined like verbal adjectives, having gender and number, but no personal a&-; in the modern meaning, however, they need not approach participles. The frequentative verb ie conjugated like a defective verb of the incomplete aspect; or it has a preterite incomplete like faciebam, and a periphrastic future, but commonly no preeent or simple future ; but Waa& from bt2iti ‘to be,’ may be mnsidered of incomplete or of frequentative aspect ; and it is probable that all thd frequentative clam of verbs, of 54 ON A DIFFICULTY IN RUSSIAN GRAMMAR. which Gimtt, vat& at1 are common terminations, arose from a combination of other verbs with thia verb as an auxiliary. Theee Russian freqoentativee seem rather to refer to a broken action than a multiplied one, and hence their use in negative phrases, m nikogda n.e toZkosalzs he never UBBd to talk,‘ not ‘ he never often talked.’ The semelfactive verb is essentially the opposite to the frequentative, and signifies what we get done at once ; it is declined like the complete verb, with a simple future, and a preterite analogous to feci, jam feci. The usual ink nu reminds us of Gr. vv in tj&vvp; unluckily the &. infix aeems limited to the pmnt and pmterimperfect tenses, or what I have dassXed as forms of the incomplete aspect, while the Russian forms exclude the incomplete aspect. Nevertheleea, it is noteworthy that many of the Gk. verbs, as &?pvpc, &&vvp, refer to an act which may be suddenly completed. Now, let ua consider again that the infinitive of the com- plete aspect is more like a second aorist than a ht(ie. it is the form nearest the root) ; and that in Greek many verbs have no second aorist, as especially the eku,mflexed verbs, which are regarded as nominals or verbs formed Gom the nouns of other verbs. In Rum there are similar verbs, though from the absence of accents and long vowels it is harder to trace them. But they seem mostly wcognieable by an exuberance of vowel or diphthong in the desinence of the bases, whence they are referred to the last conjugations in theoretioal grammars, whereaci in practical grammars these conjugations take. ,a prior place by reason of their frequent occummce. Now there are many cases where them eeconday verb8 furnish the incomplete aspect, ae in com- pounds imatg or nimati ‘to take,’ while the primitive verbs (as iati or &tlI for nemtlI) furnish the complete aspect. Compare Latin oideo, tidehrn, &&re from a nominal base ; &, uidisae from a primitive. Sometimee the primitive and secondary forms have another application, as I will Boon exemplifg-. But there are many nominal veibs which have no available primitives; and hence there are verbs of incomplete aspect BY 0. B. CAYLEY, B80. 55 whioh have no complete qect naturally. But as it ia practically necessary to use them for what tua done, as well s~8for what wm being dm, it is agreed that their compounds with certain prepositions shall be ueed for their complete aspects. Thus &lati ‘to do,’ is of incomplete Bspect, but its compound sddbtlt of complete; ddlalii is ‘he was doing,’ but sddlaZiE ‘he did.’ Of courae the preposition has, or haa had, a more special meaning, but it may be an unimportant one ; and the use of the two verb in question is not altogether unlike that off&, mfiw in Latin, if I may awume that confdt would be more easily found than wfiiebcst.