Talk:negovat


 * Hi. Is this verb really biaspectual? I think it's only imperfective. That's what the linked dictionaries say and the Slovak equivalent is in Slovak dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it to imperfective only following ASCS and SSJC, in . If Jan.Kamenicek (who entered the aspects) has compelling analysis showing this can actually be used as perfective, my edit can be reverted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are many -ovat biaspectual verbs, like demonstrovat, rezignovat but this one doesn't seem to be one of them. I don't know if a perfective equivalent exist for negovat. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Example of perfective usage: Přečetl jsem si ten návrh a na místě jsem ho negoval., where it has the same meaning as odmítl (refused). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! I was trying to test in a similar way but struggled since my Czech is not so great. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jan.Kamenicek: Thank you. I am not sure this example is conclusive; it seems I could equally well use rozporoval as a synonym in that example, which is imperfective. The perfective form znegovat is attested in Google Books, but I am not sure it changes anything. Would you happen to have a link to a good source covering Czech verbs that are both perfective and imperfective? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rozporovat is imo another verb that can be used both as imperfective (e. g. Neustále něco rozporoval) and perfective (Předložili mu důkaz, ale on ho hned rozporoval). The proof that the word rozporovat is biaspectual can be seen in IJP, where it has both present transgressive (used with imperfective verbs) and past transgressive (used with perfective verbs). It is truth that the word negovat has only present transgressive in IJP, but it is not difficult to think of a sentence where the usage is clearly perfective, as I have demonstrated above.
 * As for the source, I do not have any which lists directly negovat, but there is an interesting text Biaspectuals revisited, which among others gives the following specifics of such Czech verbs:
 * There is no exponent in their morphological makeup which would signal aspect.
 * Biaspectuals are (with some exceptions) loan words.
 * The aspect  of   a  biaspectual  use  can  be  identified  through  a  substitution  of   the  biaspectual  by  a  “synonymous”  Czech  verb,  which  distinguishes  the  aspect (as I have done by substituting negoval with odmítl above). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As for negovat x znegovat: I found a source stating that it is quite typical that some perfective forms are created from biaspectual loan verbs like realizovat—zrealizovat, formulovat—zformulovat... --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jan.Kamenicek: Excellent. I am still not 100% sure, but this is because it would take more time for me to gain confidence about the subject of "biaspectuals" and obtain a clearer idea of perfectivity (aspect) in usage in which the verb form morphology does not reveal the perfectivity. The above looks like a solid analysis, so please feel free to readd the perfective aspect to negovat. Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jan.Kamenicek: A challenge: if this is perfective, why are the past transgressives not attested, unlike the present transgressives? Present:, , ; past: , , . --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is because past transgressives are vanishing from the usage and so you hardly meet them with new loan words. It is the same with skórovat. This word is quite clearly biaspectual (and Biaspectuals Revisited explicitely mention it as biaspectual), and you also do not find its past transgressives in Google Books, although they would make sense. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Conjugation tables

 * Thank you for the analysis above. If I may draw your attention to some flaws I see in the conjugation tables. Imperfective and perfective verbs have similar tables, which is confusing. E.g. "Present forms" also lists FUTURE forms of perfective verbs (the notes below the table are read as an afterthought). Please take a look at the Russian biaspectual verb, which has two conjugation tables. Pls note for example, that "анонси́рую" 1st singular present tense for the imperfective aspect (1st table) and 1st singular future tense for the perfective aspect (2nd table). Future forms for imperfective forms are explicitly listed as "бу́ду анонси́ровать", etc. which would be "budu" + infinitive in Czech.

Also pinging : Do you think this looks like a flaw? If our Czech editors agree, may be that should be rewritten to a suitable and more meaningful format (it doesn't have to look like the Russian conjugation tables). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not really like the way the Russian conjugation tables list e. g. "future tense", because they are imo not forms of the verb анонсировать, but forms of the verb быть in combination with the infinitive анонсировать. This is more connected with grammar than with forms of the word. However, I am not very strong in Russian so I will speak about Czech:


 * Present forms of our conjugation tables do not list future forms, as argued above. With Czech perfective verbs we use their present forms to express future (it is not possible to express the present with them). Despite that the Czech linguistic literature usually does not talk about them as "future forms", but as "present forms" (přítomné tvary, or prézentní formy) used to express future tense. Here is an example from the Masaryk University in Brno, see the very first paragraph, where there is written: future tense is expressed by three forms: a) bud- + infinitive of an imperfect verb, b) present forms of perfect verbs, c) prefix po- combined with present forms of a closed group of verbs.


 * So there are only a few verbs which really have future forms distinct from present forms, like nést.


 * My opinion is that we should call forms like dáme the present forms (with a note that they are used to express the future tense) to be in accord with linguistic literature. If we decided to call it a future form, we would not only have to rewrite the conjugation tables, but also the definitions of all the individual forms, because e. g. dáme is currently defined here as the "first-person plural present indicative of dát", and not as the (sic) "first-person plural future indicative of dát".


 * However, if other contributors come to conclusion that the tables (and definitions of individual forms) should be rewritten, I will not fight against it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am grateful to Jan Kameníček for what I find to be an excellent design of Czech conjugation tables. I find them compact yet informative. Views on this may differ, of course. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)