Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Feminine:

-in-a Rus dom-ı

n-a ‘house’ (do

m-ø)

-ur-a B/C/S gla

v-ur-a ‘head’ (gla

v-a)

)ug-a Ukr sobac-ju

g-a ‘dog’ (soba

k-a)

Neuter:

-i

st-e Blg zˇen-ı

st-e ‘woman’ (zˇen-a

)

-i

-e Rus dom-ı

-e [Masc] ‘house’ (do

m-ø)

-sk-o Pol bab-sk-o ‘woman’ (bab-a)

-isk-o Pol bab-isk-o ‘woman’ (bab-a)

Ukr dom-y

k-o ‘house’ (do

m-ø)

What is a diminutive in one language may be the non-diminutive form in another

language. We have seen this with ‘flower’ above. Similarly, the following all

represent the neutral terms, but the second set in each meaning is formally diminu-

tive: Rus reka

, but Ukr rı

ˇ-ka

‘river’; Pol ptak ‘bird’, but Rus, Blg pt-ı

ca; Rus knı

ga,

Cz kniha, ‘book’, but Ukr kny

zˇ-ka, Pol ksia˛

z-ka. When a diminutive has become

the standard form in the language, the original unmodified form is often kept in

high style, or in an augmentative sense: Pol ksia˛

z-ka ‘book’, ksie˛ g-a ‘tome’.

As a rule the diminutive suffix preserves the gender of the root, as with Ukr ho

los

above. Sometimes, however, the suffix switches the new stem into another declen-

sion: Rus dom ‘house’ has the augmentative dom-ı

-e, which declines like a neuter

noun but remains masculine, as can be seen from concord and agreement:

Rus krası

v-yj [Masc] dom-ı

-e ‘beautiful big house’. The same is true of the

Russian augmentative dom-ı

n-a and pejorative dom-ı

sk-o. But Pol dom-isk-o ‘great

big house’ is neuter, though Pol dom ‘house’ is masculine: Pol pie˛ kn-e [Neut] domisk-o

‘beautiful great big house’, cf. Pol pie

˛ kn-y [Masc] dom ‘beautiful house’.

8.2.3 Combination, coordination and subordination

Nouns can be formed from the combination of (rarely more than) two roots,

which may themselves be nouns, adjectives, verbs or other parts of speech. The

derived nouns refer mainly to abstracts, persons, objects and places: Rus slova

–

spra

voc

nik ‘reference dictionary’ (slova

-ø ‘dictionary’ + spra

voc

nik-ø ‘reference-

book’). The least integrated of these compounds are linked by a hyphen. If both

parts are nouns, each is regularly inflected as if in syntactic apposition. However,

differences can arise with the role of the constituent lexemes. In Bulgarian

(Scatton, 1984: 267 ff.) articles and plural inflexions attach to the head if it is

second: so the Noun–Noun structure of Modifier + Head in Blg zame

stnik–

minı

sta

r ‘deputy minister’ takes the plural zame

stnik–minı

str-i and the definite

8.2 Word formation and nouns 439

zame

stnik–minı

sta

r-a

t. But the Noun–Noun structure of Head + Modifier in Blg

stude

nt–otlı

nik ‘outstanding student’ has the plural for both nouns, treating

them as in apposition (stude

nt-i–otlı

ˇn

ic-i) and the definite article suffix is attached

to the first constituent, as in a standard noun phrase (stude

nt-a

t–otlı

nik).

It is not always immediately obvious, indeed, which component is head and

which is modifier. In Rus zˇ e

ˇina–kosmona

vt ‘female astronaut’ (lit. ‘‘woman-

cosmonaut’’), the compound could, in principle, describe either a female cosmo-

naut or an astronautical woman. Although the first is semantically more plausible,

agreement is feminine to agree with zˇ e

ina, which morphosyntactically gives a

Head–Modifier structure. A similar pattern holds for Rus go

rod–gero

j ‘hero city’

and ma

–geroı

nja ‘mother-heroine’ – though here the nouns for ‘hero(ine)’ agree in

gender with the Head. Both components inflect in these Russian examples, though

the trend is toward non-declension of the first part regardless of Head–Modifier

status (Gorbac

evic

, 1978a: 182–184).

A closer type of combination involves joining with a link-vowel (o or e) rather

than a hyphen. Only the second component inflects, and determines the word-class

of the compound (31a–b). Sometimes the compound is completed with an agent

suffix (31c):

(31a) Blg vzaimopo

st ‘mutual aid’ [Adj+Noun]

(vzaı

m(e)n ‘mutual’ + pomo

st ‘aid, help’)

(31b) Pol długopis ‘ball-point pen’ [Adv+Verb]

(dług-i ‘long’ + pis- ‘write’)

(31c) B/C/S basnopı

sac ‘fabulist’

(ba%sn-a ‘fable’ + pı

s- ‘write’ + ac ‘Agent’)

Some nouns are joined by straight conjunction of roots (‘direct compounding’).

Here only the second component inflects, but compare the Adj+Noun inflexion

for ‘Novi Sad’: B/C/S uNo``v-o¯mSa

d-u ‘in Novi Sad’ vs u Beo

-grad-u ‘in Beograd/

Belgrade’):

(32a) B/C/S Beo

grad ‘Belgrade’ [Adj+Noun]

(be``o ‘white’ + gra

d-ø ‘city’)

(32b) Cz zeme

pis-ø ‘geography’ [Noun+Verb]

(zeme

‘earth’ + pis- ‘write’ + ø [Abstract nominal suffix] )

8.2.4 Prefixation + suffixation

The ‘prefix + suffix’ pattern (8.1.4) accounts for most of the prefixal formation of

nouns in Slavic. The most common type involves the addition of a word-forming

440 8. Word formation

suffix to a stem consisting of a prefix and a root, as in (14) above and (33) below. A

large number, probably the majority, of prefixed–suffixed nouns are derived from a

prepositional phrase, with the preposition becoming the prefix in the derived form:

(33a) Rus bezrabo

tica ‘unemployment’

(bez- ‘without’ + rabo

t- ‘work’ + -ica [Abstract suffix] )

(33b) Cz pr

mor

‘maritime district’

( pri-/pr

i- ‘near, by’ + mor

-e ‘sea’ + -ı

[Place suffix] )

8.2.5 Nominalized adjectives

Any Slavic adjective can be used as a noun to mean ‘the Adj one’: Slk chory

lovek ‘ill

man’, chory

‘ill one, invalid’. However, a number of adjectives have become nomi-

nalized and now form independent nouns. Here we find not only proper names in

-ov, -ev and -in as well as -ski, but also common nouns like Blg zˇ i v o

tn-o,Ruszˇ i v o

tn-oe

‘insect’, Blg mlekopita

st-e, Rus mlekopita

ˇ-ee

‘mammal’ (lit. ‘milk-feeding’), as

well as agent nouns derived from Adjective + Noun phrases by deletion of the

noun: Rus portn-o

j ‘tailor’, obvinja

em-yj ‘accused’ ([PresPassPart]: ‘he who is being

accused’), trudja

-ie-sja ‘workers’ ([PresActPart]: ‘those who are labouring’).

8.3 Word formation and verbs

Verbs provide the most complex, and the most controversial, area of word forma-

tion in Slavic. We discuss verbal roots and stems in chapters 4–5. However, that

provides only the basic derivational structure to enable us to study the inflexional

patterns of Slavic verbs, and to establish a stem to which inflexional suffixes could

be added to form the paradigms (5.5.5).

In this section we take up the wider picture of the formation of the various

derived verb forms. There is inevitably some overlap with our treatment of inflex-

ion, a feature of the status of aspect in Slavic (6.3). We favor no position on

whether aspect is a matter of inflexion or derivation. The principal discussion of

aspect formation is located in this chapter because it allows us to achieve a better

perspective on word formation in Slavic as a whole.

Typical verb forms which fall within word-formation are:

(34a) Rus bi-t

‘to beat, hit’ [Imprfv]

po-bı

-t

‘to beat, hit’ [Prfv]

(34b) Rus u-bı

-t

‘to kill’ [Prfv]

u-bi-va

-t

‘to kill’ [Imprfv]

8.3 Word formation and verbs 441

The unaffixed form bit

forms a perfective with the addition of a prefix. Adding a

different prefix, however, both makes a perfective and creates a new lexical form,

from which a new imperfective has to be derived by the addition of a suffix. This

pattern is enormously productive. However, some verbs do not perfectivize when

prefixed, while some are perfectivized by suffixation. A few verbs are perfective

without being affixed. The semantic changes brought about by prefixation vary

from neutral perfectivization to ‘‘sublexical’’ modification in the so-called

‘‘Aktionsarten’’ (or ‘‘procedurals’’, 8.3.1.3), and genuine lexical modification as

happens with ubı

above. And the choice of ‘‘neutral’’ prefix may differ for a given

verb between languages.

Stems and aspect As a starting-point, it is useful to consider some default cases.

As Brecht shows (1985: 12), simplex verbs like bit

are usually atelic – that is, they

do not indicate any clear termination-point – and imperfective. So are prefixed-

suffixed verbs, like ubiva

. Prefixed, non-suffixed verbs like ubı

are usually telic

and perfective. There are only a few simplex (unaffixed) perfectives, which tend to

be among the common verbs:

(35a) ‘give’: Rus da-t

, Ukr da

-ty, B/C/S da``-ti,Czda

-t

‘buy’: Rus kup-ı

, Bel kup-ı

,Czkoup-it, Blg ku

p-ja, Sln kup-ı

(cf. B/C/S ku

p-iti is [Imprfv], the [Prfv] being prefixed s-ku

piti)

Other verbs of this sort are telic:

(35b) ‘sit down’: Rus ses-t

, Ukr sı

s-ty, B/C/S se``s-ti (all ¼ root sed-)

Some apparently unaffixed perfective verbs are in fact etymologically prefixed, e.g.

Rus skaza

‘say’ (s-kaz-), vzjat

‘take’ (vz-ja-), uda

rit

‘strike’ (u-dar-). They not

infrequently have suppletive related imperfectives (e.g. Rus govorı

‘say’, brat

‘take’).

Adding prefixes to unaffixed perfective verbs results in semantic changes con-

sistent with the properties of the prefix, and the resulting verb is also perfective (e.g.

Rus ot-da

‘give back’). Imperfectives are derived from such verbs either by

suffixation (the norm), typically -(i)va- or -ja-, e.g. B/C/S o-da

-va-ti ‘betray, give

away’, u-bı

-ja-ti ‘kill’, or are provided by the suppletive verb.

As we have seen in chapter 5, there are only relatively few completely unsuffixed

imperfective verb stems (i.e. lacking even a thematic vowel) like PSl nes-ti ‘to

carry’. Most verbs have either a thematic vowel which is added to the root to

form the verb stem, as in PSl pis-a-ti ‘to write’; or they have a suffix which creates a verb,

often from a non-verbal root, as in Rus u

zˇin-a-t

, ‘to have dinner/supper’ ( < noun

zˇin). Such verbs are usually inherently imperfective, and form their perfective by

442 8. Word formation

the addition of either a prefix or a suffix. In addition to the few unaffixed perfect-

ives noted above (35), there are, however, two other cases where the verb stem does

not follow this pattern: bi-aspectual verbs; and verbs of indeterminate motion.

In bi-aspectual verbs the same form can be either imperfective or perfective.

A few of these are of older Slavic origin, like Rus dar-ova

-t

‘to present (a gift)’ and

zˇen-ı

-sja ‘to get married’, Pol kaz-ac

‘to order’, Sln rod-ı

ti ‘to give birth’. But there

are also considerable numbers of borrowings, like Rus organizova

‘to organize’,

Blg trenı

ram ‘train’, Cz informovat ‘to inform’. This aspectual indeterminacy is

unusual in Slavic, and seems to sit ill with the dynamics of verb use. As a result, two

diverging tendencies are appearing. Some of the bi-aspectual verbs have derived

new imperfectives with -iva( j)-, e.g. Rus aresto

v-yva-t

‘arrest’ and non-standard

organizo

v-yva-t

, which may push the non-derived verbs toward perfective special-

ization, as has happened in the case of arestova

. A second tendency is for such

verbs to form new perfectives, e.g. Rus s-organizova

, Pol za-awansowac

‘to

advance’, Ukr za-are

stuva

ty ‘to arrest’ (and even additional imperfectives:

Ukr za-are

sto

v-uva-ty).

Verbs of motion can occur in indeterminate  determinate pairs, like Rus

xodı

 idtı

‘to go/walk’, nosı

 nestı

‘to carry’, in which the first member is

indeterminate in respect of direction or time, and the second determinate. Here the

alternation is most often centred on ablaut in the root, but with additional con-

jugational differences. Prefixes with verbs of motion have more predictable seman-

tic (physical) effects than with non-motion verbs, and adding a prefix to the

indeterminate member of the verb pair creates a derived imperfective. The parallel

perfective is formed with the same prefix added to the corresponding determinate

verb form. East and West Slavic and Slovenian have such paired verbs of motion

and conveying (see 9.4.2). Both can be prefixed, but only the prefixed determinate

forms are perfective:

(36) Rus Imperfective Perfective

nosı

‘to carry’ [Indet] –

nestı

‘to carry’ [Det] po-nestı

pri-nosı

‘to bring’ pri-nestı

ot-nosı

‘to take away’ ot-nestı

vy-nosı

‘to take out’ vy

-nesti

v-nosı

‘to take in’ v-nestı

In Czech, Slovak and Sorbian the determinate verb with the prefix po- provides the

future of both aspects, while in other languages this form is perfective only (these

same three languages also have a set of verbs which are not perfectivized by the

prefix po-):

8.3 Word formation and verbs 443

(37) Cz letı

m ‘I am flying’ [ImprfvDet]

po-letı

m ‘I shall fly’ [Imprfv] ¼ budu lete

(cf. Rus po-lec

ˇu´

‘I shall fly’ [Prfv ])

With these exceptions – bi-aspectual verbs, verbs of indeterminate  determinate

motion, and the inherently perfective stems – most Slavic verbs engage in prefixa-

tion or suffixation for the formation of the verbal aspects.

For the purposes of discussion, we divide verbal word formation into three

groups: prefixation (8.3.1), suffixation (8.3.2) and ‘‘other issues’’, including supple-

tion (8.3.3). Within prefixation and suffixation we distinguish grammatical and

semantic processes, following common practice. Overall both prefixation and

suffixation are intertwined with both semantic and grammatical factors. The divi-

sion of prefixation and suffixation into grammatical and semantic sub-classes is not

absolute, and we shall indicate the overlaps where they occur.

8.3.1 Prefixation

Verbal prefixation splits into two classes: grammatical prefixation (concerning

neutral perfectivizing prefixes); and semantic prefixation (concerning non-neutral

perfectives and Aktionsarten (‘‘procedurals’’).

8.3.1.1 Grammatical prefixation

In the following discussion we leave aside the negative prefixed verbs in Czech,

Slovak and Sorbian. Here the orthographic convention attaches the negative to the

verb and reflects the pronunciation, since the prefixed n( j)e- attracts the stress to

itself:

(38) Slk chceme spievat’ ‘we wish to sing’

nechceme [

łf-] spievat’ ‘we do not wish to sing’

The proclitic behavior of the negative certainly resembles prefixation. But the

negative comes first, whether attached to the verb or not. We discuss it in more

detail under clitics (6.1.2.4, 7.4.3.3).

‘‘Grammatical’’ (or ‘‘non-semantic’’) prefixation for verbs, in the sense proposed

by Townsend (1968/1975: 117), covers the formation of perfectives by the addition

of a ‘‘neutral’’ (or ‘‘empty’’) prefix to the imperfective form of the verb. Most verbs

have one, and usually only one, such ‘‘neutral’’ prefix:

(39a) ‘write’ (pis-): all languages have na-

Ukr pysa

ty  na-pysa

ty Bel pisa

 na-pisa

Cz psa

t  na-psat Pol pisac

 na-pisac

Mac pi

se  na-pi

se B/C/S pı

sati  na-pı

sati

444 8. Word formation

(39b) ‘do, work’ (de

ˇl-,

rab-, rad-): most have s-/z-, some u-

Rus de

lat

 s-de

lat

Bel rabı

 z-rabı

Cz de

ˇlat

 u-de

ˇlat

Sorb dz

´eˇ

łac

 z-dz

´eˇ

łac

Sln de

lati  z-de

lati B/C/S ra

diti  u-ra

diti

Even if one contests the notion of ‘‘neutral’’ prefix, there is nonetheless a sense in

which such prefixes add less information to the derived perfective than non-neutral

prefixes: compare Rus na-pisa

‘write’ with pere-pisa

‘rewrite, transcribe’. In

addition, the perfectives formed with neutral prefixes do not form new derived

imperfectives with suffixes like -iva- (Rus pere-pı

s-yvat

, but not *napisyvat

, see

further below) – though this is not, unfortunately, a wholly reliable criterion for

identifying the neutral prefix.

Different verbs select different neutral prefixes for the grammatical formation of

perfectives. In principle the semantic content of the prefix has ‘‘fused’’ with that of

the verb, but the subjectivity of this process in abstract extensions has allowed the

neutral prefix to differ between languages for given cognate stems:

(40) ‘kill’:

West Slavic and Bel za- :Cz za-bit Slk za-bit’

Bel za-bı

Pol, Sorb za-bic

East and South Slavic u-: Rus u-bı

Ukr u-by

Sln u-bı

ti B/C/S u

-biti

Blg u-bı

vam Mac u-biva

There may even be more than one prefix acting as neutral on a given root within

one language:

(41) Rus ma

zat

‘smear’: [Prfv] vy

-mazat

, na-ma

zat

, po-ma

zat

It is nonetheless possible to identify an approximate default – or at least most

common – neutral prefix in both statistical and semantic terms for each language:

for instance, po- for Russian (with almost 28 percent of [common] verbs: Cubberley,

1982), and z- for Polish and Czech (Short, 1993a: 493; Rothstein, 1993: 722). If the

notion of semantic fusion between prefix and root is valid, then the semantic load of

po- – ‘area or period of limitation of an action’ (cf. the preposition po with this

meaning) – makes it a likely default for bearing the meaning of perfective, which is

precisely the specifying of a limit to the action.

8.3.1.2 Semantic prefixation

The use of a non-neutral prefix will add to the verb root not only the perfective

meaning, but also extra information:

8.3 Word formation and verbs 445

(42) Sln pisa

ti ‘to write’ na-pisa

ti [Prfv]

o-pisa

ti ‘to describe’

pod-pisa

ti ‘to sign’

pre-pisa

ti ‘to copy’

v-pisa

ti ‘to inscribe’

(Svane, 1958: 85–86 offers a list of twelve prefixed forms for this root). Most of the

prefixes are related to prepositions, but the meanings of the prepositions are only

loosely tied to the meanings of the corresponding prefixed verbs (having undergone

abstract extension), as happens in comparable cases in English verbs like look up,

e.g.: Sln v ‘in’, v-pisa

ti ‘inscribe’; pod ‘under’, pod-pisa

ti ‘to sign’, cf. English under-

write. The semantic correspondence of prefixes and prepositions is best seen in

verbs of motion and conveying: when the prefix is related to a preposition of spatial

reference, the derived verb is usually semantically predictable (see also examples in

(36) of prefixed forms of Rus nestı

(43) Rus sta

v-it

‘to put (stand)’ po-sta

vit

[Prfv]

v-sta

vit

‘to insert’

pere-sta

vit

‘to shift position, transpose’

pred-sta

vit

‘to present’ (lit. ‘place before’)

pod-sta

vit

‘to place under’

Such formations are often called ‘‘lexical’’, because they form new semantic units.

Since they are inherently perfective, they have to derive new imperfectives, which is

accomplished by suffixation (Rus pred-stav-lja

-t

etc.) (see 8.3.2).

8.3.1.3 ‘‘Aktionsarten’’/‘‘procedurals’’

A special case of prefixal perfective formation involves the ‘‘Aktionsarten’’. The

German term ‘‘Aktionsarten’’, or ‘‘types of action’’, has not been bettered in spite of

attempts by Anglophone and Anglophile neologists, but a suitable English term is

‘‘procedurals’’. Procedurals cover derived verb forms which are not as semantically

elaborated as the aspectual formations described in 8.3.1. Instead, the meanings

contributed by the prefixes under procedurals relate more to the action’s beginning,

continued process and termination. Procedurals therefore sit between semantically

loaded aspect formation with prefixes, on the one hand, and perfectivization with

neutral prefixes, on the other hand, and tend to overlap with both. They are

sometimes described as ‘‘sublexical’’ (Townsend, 1968/1975: 118), since the pre-

fixed forms do not constitute new lexical items, but lexical elaborations of the

meaning of the stem verb. The verbs which typically form such perfectives are roots

which are atelic, or inherently imperfective, mainly with inbuilt process, e.g. ‘talk’,

446 8. Word formation

‘work’, ‘cry’, with prefixes marking the onset, or the limitation or specification

of time:

(44) Rus rabo

tat

‘to work’ govorı

‘to talk’

‘to start

VERBing’: za-rabo

tat

za-govorı

‘to VERB for a short time’: po-rabo

tat

po-govorı

‘to VERB for a specified time’ (e.g. ‘for an hour’, ‘all day’):

pro-rabo

tat

pro-govorı

They also tend not to form new derived imperfectives, for instance in -(i)va-,

although this also is not a reliable criterion of their status as procedurals. Where

apparent derived imperfectives exist, we are dealing with different semantic items

(usually abstract extensions), for instance Rus zagovorı

can also mean ‘to put a

spell on’ and zarabo

tat

‘to earn’, with – in these meanings – the appropriate derived

imperfectives zagova

r-iva-t

, zaraba

t-yva-t

Other sorts of procedurals – such as ‘‘iterative’’ and ‘‘semelfactive’’ action – are

marked by suffixation (e.g. -(i)va - for the former, -nu- for the latter) (see below,

8.3.2.3).

8.3.2 Suffixation

8.3.2.1 Grammatical suffixation

In English verbs are regularly formed from other parts of speech without affixa-

tion, by using – say – a noun as a verb (oil – to oil (‘‘conversion’’)); or there is

addition of a suffix like -ize. Only the second of these patterns occurs in Slavic:

(45a) ‘whip’[Noun]: Rus knut,Czbic

‘to whip’: Rus bit

knut-o

m (lit. ‘to beat with a whip’)

cf. Cz bic

ˇ-ova-t

(45b) Sorb wolij ‘oil’, wolij-owa-c

‘to oil’

Almost all derived verbs are formed from nouns and adjectives. Once again,

cognate roots need not have cognate suffixes. Principal suffix types include:

(46) -i- Cz mraz-i-t ‘to be frosty’ (mra

z ‘frost’)

Ukr su

s-y

-ty ‘to dry’ (sux-y

j ‘dry’)

-e- Cz bel-e-t ‘to be white’ (bı

‘white’)

-a- Ukr obı

d-a-ty ‘to dine’ (obı

d ‘dinner’)

-(iz)(ir)ova- Rus internacional-izı

rova-t

‘to internationalize’

Sorb noc-owa-c

‘to spend the night’ (noc ‘night’);

cf. Rus noc

-eva

-t

8.3 Word formation and verbs 447

A few verbs are formed from interjections and vowel sounds (47a), pronouns (47b)

and numerals (47c):

(47a) Pol och-a-c

‘to say ‘‘oh’’, to groan’

(47b) Rus ty

-ka-t

,Czty-ka-t ‘to say ‘‘ty’’, Fr tutoyer’

(47c) B/C/S u-dvo

j-i-ti ‘to double’ ( < dvo`` j-e ‘two’[Coll] )

A different kind of grammatical suffixation involves reflexives. In East Slavic the

reflexive is written as a suffix (Ukr my

ty-sja ‘to wash oneself’). In West and South

Slavic it is an enclitic particle (Pol myc

sie˛ , B/C/S mı``ti se).

We can set aside here verbs which have only reflexive forms, like Rus boja

sja ‘to

be afraid, fear’, and where no particular function or meaning can be ascribed to the

reflexive component. Some verbs, however, use the reflexive to intransitivize

transitive stems, creating a form not unlike the Greek Middle Voice in function

and meaning:

(48) ‘to begin’: Rus nac

ina

[Trans] nac

ina

-sja [Intrans]

‘to open’: Rus otkryva

[Trans] otkryva

-sja [Intrans]

Such constructions are less often accompanied by an expression of the agent than

the conventional passive (7.1.5), or the Object–Verb–Subject order which often

corresponds to English by-agent passives (7.4.3.1).

Other examples of grammatical suffixation involve the rich systems of stem

formation. One kind of stem formation relates to the formation of imper-

fectives, which we have discussed above. Some verbs mark their perfectives by a

different thematic vowel, or by an -n- suffix; the perfectives may be shorter by

a syllable:

(49) Imperfective Perfective

Bel max-a

-c

‘to wave’ max-nu

-c

Rus nac

in-a

-t

‘to begin’ nac

-a

-t

(nac

-n-u

...)

Slk kop-a-t’ ‘to dig’ kop-nu-t’

Still other verbs show an -a- vowel in the imperfective, often preceded by mutation

or ablaut. This corresponds to other (often -i- or -e-) vowels in the perfective:

(50) Perfective Imperfective

Sln blagoslov-ı

-ti ‘to bless’ blagoslavl-ja

-ti

B/C/S pu

st-i-ti ‘to let’ pu

´ˇ

st-a-ti

Bel vy

mus-i-c

‘to compel’ vymu

s-a

-c

Rus umer-e

-t

‘to die’ umir-a

-t

Rus rod-ı

-t

‘to give birth’ rozˇ-a

-t

/rozˇd-a

-t

448 8. Word formation