--- In
cybalist@egroups.com, s.tarasovas@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@egroups.com, Andrei Markine <andrey@...> wrote:
> > Could cybalist members help me in resolving a puzzle?
> >
> > It is a Russian verb " vynut' " ("to take out").
> the future form in
> Russian is formally the same as the present one, other markers make
> the difference (usually the verb's stem is changed).
I revisited my posting and considered the explanation above too
obscure. The general idea is that the Slavs lost the ProtoIE marker
of the future tense *-s- somehow (the Balts, being very close to the
Slavs linguistically, retained it: cf. Lith. imu`<*imo: 'I take',
im~siu<*im-s-jo: 'I will take'), and re-expressed the futurum by
perfective verbs (Russian delat' is an imperfective, while sdelat' is
a perfective verb). In turn, there were three popular markers of
perfective verbs:
1. the verb's root was changed, eg, infixed by inchoative marker -n-:
imperfective (iterative):
inf. *se^de^ti ( <*se:de:ti, e^ for jat') 'to sit (be sitting)',
1 sg.praes. *se^djo, 'I sit (am sitting)'
perfective (inchoative)
inf. *se,sti (<*se:ndti, e, for nasalized e) 'to take a sit (change
the state)
1 sg.praes. *se,do, 'I take a sit'
In todays Russian we have:
1 sg. praes. sizhu (<se^zhu<*se^djo) vs. 1 sg. fut. s'adu<*se,do,.
Analogically,
*lez^ati (<*lege:ti) *lez^o,(legjo:m)
*le,gt'i (<*lengti) *le,go, (lengo:m)
lezhu - l'agu
2. the verb's stem was changed, eg, an inchoative suffix -no,- added:
imperfective:
inf. *drUz^ati ( <*druge:ti) 'to qauke',
1 sg.praes. *drUgjo, 'I quake (am quaking)'
perfective
inf. *drUgno,ti 'to start'
1 sg.praes. *drUgno, 'I start'
In todays Russian we have:
1 sg. praes. drozhu vs. 1 sg. fut. drognu.
3. a prefix was added, this way being the most popular:
imperfective:
inf. *je^sti (<*e:dti) 'to eat (be beating)',
1 sg.praes. *je^mI 'I eat (am eating)'
perfective
inf. *sU(n)je^sti 'to consume (totally)'
1 sg.praes. *sU(n)je^mI 'I consume (totally)'
In todays Russian we have:
1 sg. praes. jem vs. 1 sg. fut. sjem.
Sergei