Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Russian verbal forms (was: (In)transitive verbs

From:Tamás Racskó <tracsko@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 13:55
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 Alexander Savenkov <savenkov@...> wtote:
> > As far I know, in case of <ponevydelyvat'> even its base > > <vydelyvat'> is familiar. > The base, the stem is <del>, as you know.
Sure, but I intentionally didn't use the term "stem". In my approach, <ponavydelyvat'> has more possible bases: <delat'>, <delyvat'>, <vydelyvat'> etc. The actual combination of the meaning of the prefix and the meaning of the possible base (i.e. "one less prefixed form") can or can't fully determine the meaning of the compound word. (Like matryoshka dolls: if you can't open any of the external dolls, you can't reach the innerer dolls, even if you know that their there. Therefore, those innerer ones may be disregarded.) If the components can't determine the compound, that is the semantically "indivisible" base. And I think that the base for <ponavydelivat'> is <vydelyvat'>. In other words, there can be a model where Russian has two separate verbs <vydelyvat'>, one with the 'regular' meaning 'to manufacture, to process' and one with the meaning 'to make, to do'.
> It is considered a prefixed word. This is because <podelyvat'>, > <sdelat'>, <poddelat'>, and many other exist.
See my previous paragraph, formally it _is_ a prefixed word, but in the intellection of the Russian speakers, it _could_ be a lexemic atom, though.
> I'm not an expert on this. All I can say that there are the verbs > <navydelyvat'>, <povydelyvat'(sya)>, and <ponadelat'>. I.e. <po> > seems to be a separate prefix.
Sure, <na-> and <po-> are separate prefixes. But is their combination <pona-> a simple addition of its elements, or has an autonomous meaning that can't be deduced from <po-> + <na->? Can the prefixes be combined freely, e.g. <perenavy-> or is it restricted only to <pona-> (+ a variadic prefix)? <ponavy-> is rather a single prefix if there's a semantic or combinatoric constriction.
> In Russian it is <navestit'>. <Na> can be cut off pretty easily > since there are <izvestit'>, <perevesti> etc. What about Slovak?
<navs^tívit'> is a result of a lexical split. In the past, Slovak knew *<navestit'> but it meant also 'to announce, to report' (see present-day <návestie> 'announcement, report'). Thus, this verb had a similar semantic extension like <vydelyvat'> in present-day Russian. Regarding the meaning 'to visit', the verb had lost the semantic connection with its base *<vestit'> in the speakers' intellection, it is considered as an indivisible word, and there was no cohesion to protect against inetimological sound changes. When the connection remained intelligible with the base, the verb (or the noun formed from the verb) retained its etymological form, e.g. Slovak has <z|vest'> 'news' (cf. <izvestit'>), <pred|z|vest'> 'foreshow, prediction', <po|vest'> 'tale, saga'.
> > prefixes <v-> and <z->. > This prefix is not for verbs only in Russian. Are you sure it > originally consisted of two prefixes?
Slovak <z-> is a cognate of Russian <iz->. There are contrastive pairs like in case of Russian <pona-> vs. <po-> and <na->, e.g. <vzletiet'> 'to fly away', <zletiet'> 'to land (bird, plane), to fall down', <vletiet'> 'to fly in'.
> No way those constructions are ad hoc. Some other examples that > come to mind: <ponavytvoryat'>, <ponavynimat'>, <ponavlezat'> etc. > You cannot call them systemic but they can and should be used when > appropriate.
I've learned from your examples that <pona-> + one prefix exists in Russian. But my original comment concerned the whole verbal system not only the chosen example of prefix chaning. It there's no other prefix triples but the ones starting with <pona->, then (1) it's an isolated phomenon (and can be treated as "ad hoc" in terms of the entire verbal system); and/or (2) <pona-> is a single prefix, thus there's no three-level prefix chains in fact. Regards, Tamás