Iv. on a Difficulty in Russian Grammar

Home , Aorist, Defective verb, Frequentative

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 explanations, 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 indeterminate, 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 present 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 particle 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 complete 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 compounds 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. It is to be noted, however, that the compound of the frequentative doee not asaume the complete aspect, but is reckoned of the incomplete, -while losing its frequentative character. This rule holds of many verbs which are no more used in the simple form, and which are considered as very contracted frequentatives, so that their infinitives do not end in wti, but in iati, etc. Other aspects are occasionally distinguished. The term indefinite verb is sometimes used in a broader, and sometimes a narrower sense ; but there are some twenty- eight pairs of’simple verb which are called duplicate (sugub~ii),and are said to have a &finite and an indefinite aspect. Between these mpecta the formal relation is various. Sometimea the definite verb is primitive, and what is called irregular, while the indefinite ie secondary or regular, so that it may be called nominal, at least by analogy; thus neeti ‘to carry,’ is definite, rcositi (to carry,’ indefinite. Sometimea the definite verb is seoondary, while the indefinite is like a co6tracted frequentative, as is the wewith hiti and lomati, ‘to break.’ But let us come to their use, which ie a more intereating point. The u~8of the definite aapecf Beems to be almost confined to affirmations, while the indefinite is required for negations and interrogations. This is the lese remarkable, because in Ruse theae phrases, the negative and interrogative, require often a peculiar construction even of the noun, so that the genitive case, which seems to have a partitive import, is used inetead of the accusative or sometimes of the nominative. 56 ON A DTFFICULTY IN BUSSIAN QRAMlldAB.

For ‘ I saw not the woman ; she is not at home,’ we seem to have ‘I saw not of the woman; there is not of her at home.’ The intention is, I suppose, to deny more vaguely and com- prehensively and show that there is not a particle of truth in the assertion that appears to be combated. There is the same intention in the French negative forms ne . . pas, ne . .point, and even in the English not for ne ought; though these strong negations need not have been carried into d y phrases like ‘A is sot equal to B,’ or ‘A n’est pas egal A B ;’ where we do not mean that A is assuredly very far from being equal to B. But I come now to the grammatical complexity which forms my proper subject. According to Gretsch the simple defipite and indefinite verbs, as nesti, miti, ‘ tocarry,’ may be both of the incomplete aspect. The compound of the definite verb, vnatd ‘ to carry in,’ is, as you might expect, definite and complete in aspect. The compound of the frequentative, as vndieati, is indefinite and incomplete. But the compound of the indefinite may be complete-indefinite or incomplete-definite, or both. Under bt?gati ‘to flee,’ Gretsch gives ten compounds of one character, indefinite-complete, and the same (all but one), with six new ones, as of the opposite character, so that nipe are equivocal ; under nosit$ ‘ to carry,’ he refers to the =me analogies. But so far as regards the one preposition &i ‘out,’ he lays down this rule. When the preposition in the infinitive and some other places draws the accent to itself‘, as in otifnm*t$, the compound is complete- indefinite. When the accent in these places remains on the verb, as &idti, the compound is, on the contrary, incomplete-definite. In the former case you c+n express ‘ I did not do,’ in the latter ‘ I wm doing ;’ that is, the 0eeing or the carrying or the like. Here is what has struck me and others whom I formerly knew, as in theory an interesting paradox, and in practice a most troublesome perplexity in the Russian grammar. One consideration has since qurred to me. Tbe form sthhmX$,omitting at present the accent, may be two things, 1) the verb miti with the preposition prefixed, or 2) the verb BY C. B. CAYLEY, ESQ. 57 formed from the compound noun, whether used or implied (I believe it is used in this instance), vziinoe ‘an outcarrying,’ which has the accent on the firet syllable and comes from dinesti, the compound of the primitive and definite verb. When the verb has the complete-indefinite character, the preposition is accented ; it is then really attached to the verb and has the usual power of turning the indomplete act to a complete. When the verb has the incomplete definite character, thepreposition belongs to a noun, and hk no power of expressing the complete action. But a definite action is expressed, because the noun had a- definite character. The possibility of this double character of a compound and aecondary verb may be illustrated by the Greek .npobyirw and .npoLqdcopar. Of course they are not related it8 T~TTO, hrop~i,because ~poxOryl~wmeans ‘I play prologue,’ ~pobyl- cop~i‘I calculate beforehand.’ The pedigree of one is Xk-ym, ~po%yw ‘I speak before others,’ ~p6hqo~‘a prologue,’ rrpobyitJo; the pedigree of the other is kkyw, Ahyo9 an account,’ etc., byi~opar,rpohqicopi. They are not sister- forms, but eecond cousim, each having a special character according to the generation, earlier or later, in which the prepition intermarried with the verbal family. And a difference of accent, w if we had ~pdxoly~c~p~~,might easily have arisen, but for the peculiar laws of the classic languages, which limit the accent to the last three syllables.

N.B.-In transcriptions of Russian words zi represents the mute final character .a, but tii the vowel H expressed by y in Polieh; 8 L modifies the preceding consonant; but initial fa, fu, etc., are equivalent to (a IO)ya, yu, etc. ; e, tt are used, however, for ie, #@ (E %) ; s’, P;’ represent the lettors m = equivalent to sh and French$