Slavic languages seem to be isolated and less known than other language families. Why is that?
Why do Slavic languages have less exposure than others?
For the exception of Russia, many of Eastern European countries were ruled by foreign nations (Germany, Austria, Ottoman Turks, Russia, etc), so they never really formed powerful and unified states that could exert influence around the world.
Slavic languages aren't isolated at all if you mean linguistic aspect and they are known very well, and they have been studied well like any other languages, but yes, they are not so popular among learners because of weak Slavic states and probably because of archaic and complicated grammar.
There's no such thing as archaic grammar. Grammatical constructions might be archaic in specific languages (for instance, "thou art" is archaic English), but if another language uses the same construction all the time, it's not archaic in that language.
- Kef
- Kef
well, yeah I agree, that for a certain language a certain construction can't be archaic because it uses it, but I called Slavic grammar "archaic" in comparison to majority of other european languages, AFAIK verb aspect exists only is Slavic languags while all other Indo-European languages has lost it.
Could have fooled me.
(The above sentence right there uses the perfect aspect.)
(The above sentence right there uses the perfect aspect.)
In Slavic languages such things are rendered by ONE word, moreover "can" is a modal verb and this construction is not what I ment.
Pisat' - to write
Napisat' - perfect (to write)
Dopisat'/dopisyvat' - to write till the end, to end writing/imperfect
Ispisat'/ispisyvat' - to write on all paper which you have/imperfect
So?
Pisat' - to write
Napisat' - perfect (to write)
Dopisat'/dopisyvat' - to write till the end, to end writing/imperfect
Ispisat'/ispisyvat' - to write on all paper which you have/imperfect
So?
> moreover "can" is a modal verb and this construction is not what I ment.
Did you mean "have"? The perfect aspect was expressed by "have fooled" (infinitive mood, perfect aspect); "can" doesn't come into play there.
I have to admit that so far I'm not really convinced that the Slavic perfect aspect is particularly difficult, although it's possible that I just haven't seen enough yet.
- Kef
Did you mean "have"? The perfect aspect was expressed by "have fooled" (infinitive mood, perfect aspect); "can" doesn't come into play there.
I have to admit that so far I'm not really convinced that the Slavic perfect aspect is particularly difficult, although it's possible that I just haven't seen enough yet.
- Kef
>>Did you mean "have"? The perfect aspect was expressed by "have fooled" (infinitive mood, perfect aspect); "can" doesn't come into play there.
No, I ment "could", if it doesn't mean anything here, then why did you use it? OK, it just confused me a bit... but anyway, Germanic and Romance languages are analithical in this respect, because you need "auxilary" verbs for expressing past/present/ future perfect, Slavic languages just need one word which changes depending on the sence. This feature was also in Proto-Indo-European language, even Latin, Greek, Sanskrit couldn't save it. That's why Slavic languages can be called "archaic" sometimes. Also cases for nouns/adjectives/pronouns/numerals and lexicon which looks like PIE much more then one of any other IE language (exept Baltic ones which are close to Slavic group).
No, I ment "could", if it doesn't mean anything here, then why did you use it? OK, it just confused me a bit... but anyway, Germanic and Romance languages are analithical in this respect, because you need "auxilary" verbs for expressing past/present/ future perfect, Slavic languages just need one word which changes depending on the sence. This feature was also in Proto-Indo-European language, even Latin, Greek, Sanskrit couldn't save it. That's why Slavic languages can be called "archaic" sometimes. Also cases for nouns/adjectives/pronouns/numerals and lexicon which looks like PIE much more then one of any other IE language (exept Baltic ones which are close to Slavic group).
> No, I ment "could", if it doesn't mean anything here, then why did you use it?
Because without it I wouldn't have expressed the thought that I wanted to. I was going to say that anyway and after I wrote it I realized it did use the perfect aspect. ("Could have fooled me!" is a common expression for "I don't believe that." It expresses incredulity.)
- Kef
Because without it I wouldn't have expressed the thought that I wanted to. I was going to say that anyway and after I wrote it I realized it did use the perfect aspect. ("Could have fooled me!" is a common expression for "I don't believe that." It expresses incredulity.)
- Kef