Tense and Mood Forms

doi:10.1017/9781108973021.010

9 - Tense and Mood Forms

from Part 2 - Inflectional and Derivational Morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 May 2024

Hagen Pitsch

Edited by

Danko Šipka and

Wayles Browne

Show author details

Danko Šipka: Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Wayles Browne: Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York

Book contents

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of the inventory, formation, and use of synthetic and periphrastic tense and mood forms in modern Belarusian, Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian, Bulgarian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Lower and Upper Sorbian, and Ukrainian. It addresses both characteristics common to all modern languages and features of individual languages.

Keywords

verb tense mood morphology syntax periphrases inflection conjugation

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics , pp. 179 - 210

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2024

9 Tense and Mood Forms

9.1 Overview

The modern Slavic languages show both fundamental similarities and crucial differences regarding their inventory of verb forms.Footnote ¹ Forms common to all Slavic languages are the present tense (prs; Section 9.2.1), the imperative (imp; Section 9.3), and the conditional (cond; Section 9.4). There is also at least one future (fut; Section 9.2.3). While BCMS, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Sorbian have a periphrastic perfect (perf) and two synthetic past tenses (aorist [aor] and imperfect [ipf]), the remaining languages have a global past (pst) (Sections 9.2.2.1–9.2.2.4). All languages except Russian have also a pluperfect (plpf; Section 9.2.2.5). Differences concern the availability of a future II (Section 9.2.3.2), a conditional II (Section 9.4.2), and a future (II)-in-the-past (fut [ii]-pst; Sections 9.2.2.7–9.2.2.8). Bulgarian and Macedonian alone have evidential forms (ev; Section 9.5).Footnote ²

Non-finite forms typically include an infinitive (inf) (citation form), two gerunds, and two participles (present active, past passive). East Slavic has two more participles (present passive, past active). In general, verbal l-forms figure prominently in paradigms. Lower Sorbian and Slovene retain a supine (sup).Footnote ³ Bulgarian and Macedonian lack an infinitive.Footnote ⁴ See the inventory of verb forms in Slavic in Table 9.1 (from Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 281 ; see Reference PanzerPanzer 1999: 375).

Table 9.1 Inventory of tense and mood forms

Language	prs	aor/ipf	pst	perf	plpf	fut				ev	imp	cond		inf	sup
Language	prs	aor/ipf	pst	perf	plpf	i	ii	i-pst	ii-pst	ev	imp	i	ii	inf	sup
BCMS	S	(S)	P	(P)	P	P	P	—	—	—	S	P	P	S	—
Slovene	S	—	P	(P)	P	P	—	—	—	—	S	P	P	S	S
Bulgarian	S	S	—	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	S	(S)/P	—	—	—
Macedonian	S	S	—	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	S	P	—	—	—
Belarusian	S	—	S	—	(P)	S/P	—	—	—	—	S	P	—	P	—
Russian	S	—	S	—	—	S/P	—	—	—	—	S	P	—	P	—
Ukrainian	S	—	S	—	P	S/P	—	—	—	—	S	P	[P]	P	—
Polish	S	—	S	—	(P)	S/P	—	—	—	—	S	S	P	P	—
Sorbian	S	S	P	(P)	P	S/P	P	—	—	—	S	P	[P]	P	(S)
Czech	S	—	P	—	(P)	S/P	—	—	—	—	S	P	P	P	(S)
Slovak	S	—	P	—	P	S/P	—	—	—	—	S	P	P	P	—

Note. S: synthetic form, P: periphrastic form, S/P: synthetic or periphrastic according to aspect, (S/P): rarely or not commonly used. (P) under perf indicates that the perfect is used in its basic meaning only in the literary language, in the spoken language, it functions as a global past. (P) under plpf: rarely used or archaic. [P] under cond II: obsolete. S under imp refers to the 2sg; first person imperatives are S/P; third-person imperatives are P.

9.2 Indicative

The indicative lacks a dedicated morphological marker. It is implied by the presence of whatever tense marking (Reference LehmannLehmann 2013: 256). In its primary meaning, it imparts to the addressee that the message is to be understood as real. However, it may also serve to express situations not yet realized.

9.2.1 Present

The present tense is the only consistently synthetic paradigm shared by all Slavic languages, and despite quite a few changes since PSL, its forms are still very similar. The classification of verbs is usually based on their morphological makeup (see Chapter 8).

The present tense can refer to current and non-current (habitual, iterative, generic) situations; see (1) and (2), respectively (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 347).Footnote ⁵ Both cases usually involve imperfective forms.

(1)
On właśnie teraz rozwiązuje zadanie. (Polish)
he just now solve.prs.3sg task
‘He is solving the task right now.’

(2)
On codziennie rozwiązuje zadania.
he daily solve.prs.3sg tasks
‘He solves problems every day.’

In appropriate contexts, the imperfective present can also denote future eventualities (always with a reading of scheduling or prophecy)Footnote ⁶ or past situations (‘historical present’).

Present-tense forms of the perfective aspect can be used in the historical present and in habitual and generic contexts, too. Otherwise, their use differs strongly: while East and West Slavic languages employ them quite generally for future reference (Section 9.2.3.1), they are virtually barred from main clauses in South Slavic (except Slovene).

Sentential negation requires the negation marker to immediately precede present-tense forms.

All modern Slavic languages have rebuilt their conjugations as compared to LCS/OCS (see Reference Townsend and JandaTownsend & Janda 1996: 201; details in Chapter 8 ). While some of the old classes merged, all except East Slavic languages developed at least one new class (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 282); see Table 9.2 (excluding athematic verbs).

Table 9.2 Conjugational classes

LCS class	Modern class
I + II + III	-e-	Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian	Bulgarian, Macedonian, BCMS, Slovene, Czech, Polish, Slovak, Upper Sorbian	Lower Sorbian
IV	-i-
	*-a-*
	*-j-*

Tables 9.3–9.5 give a synopsis of Slavic present-tense paradigms. Tables 9.6–9.7 list the forms of ‘be’ and ‘have’, as they serve as auxiliaries in periphrases.

Table 9.3 Present tense -e-class

	LCS	Bel	Rus	Ukr	Bul	Mac	BCMS	Sln	LSo	USo	Pol	Cze^a	Slk
inf	nesti	nésci	nestí	nestý	—	—	-nijēti	nésti	njasć	njesć	nieść	nést	niest‘
1sg	nesǫ	njasú	nesú	nesú	-nesắ	-nesam	-nèsēm	nésem	njasu/-om	njesu	niosę	nesu	nesiem
2sg	neseši	njaséš	nesëš‘	neséš	-neséš	-neseš	-nèsēš	néseš	njasoš	njeseš	niesiesz	neseš	nesieš
3sg	nesetъ	njasé	nesët	nesé	-nesé	-nese	-nèsē	nése	njaso	njese	niesie	nese	nesie
1du	nesevě	—	—	—	—	—	—	néseva	njasomej	njesemoj	—	—	—
2du	neseta	—	—	—	—	—	—	néseta	njasotej	njesetaj/-tej	—	—	—
3du	nesete	—	—	—	—	—	—	néseta	njasotej	njesetaj/-tej	—	—	—
1pl	nesemъ	njasëm	nesëm	nesém(ó)	-nesém(e)	-neseme	-nèsēmo	néseno	najsomy	njesemy	niesiemy	neseme	nesieme
2pl	nesete	nesjacé	nesëte	neséte	-neséte	-nesete	-nèsēte	nésete	njasośo	njeseće	niesiecie	nesete	nesiete
3pl	nesǫtъ	njasúc‘	nesút	nesút‘	-nesắt	-nesat	-nèsū	nésejo/nesó	njasu	njesu	niosą	nesou	nesú

Note. In this class belong also verbs with the suffixes -uj- (e.g. Czech pracuj-u, pracuj-e-š, etc.) and -n- (e.g. Russian max-n-ú, max-n-ë-š‘, etc.).

^a The Czech 1sg can be -u or -i with most verbs of this class.

Table 9.4 Present tense -i-class

	LCS	Bel	Rus	Ukr^a	Bul	Mac	BCMS	Sln	LSo	USo	Pol	Cze	Slk
inf	xvaliti	xvalíc‘	xvalít‘	xvalýty	—	—	hváliti	hvalī	chwaliś	chwalić	chwalić	chválit	chválit‘
1sg	xvaljǫ	xvaljú	xavljú	xvaljú	xváljă	hvaljam	hvâlīm	hválim	chwalim	chwalu	chwalę	chválím	chválim
2sg	xvališi	xváliš	xváliš‘	xvályš	xváliš	hvališ	hvâlīš	hváliš	chwališ	chwališ	chwalisz	chválíš	chváliš
3sg	xvalitъ	xválic‘	xválit	xvályt‘	xváli	hvali	hvâlī	hváli	chwali	chwali	chwali	chválí	chváli
1du	xvalivě	—	—	—	—	—	—	hváliva	chwalimej	chwalimoj	—	—	—
2du	xvalita	—	—	—	—	—	—	hválita	chwalitej	chwalitaj/-tej	—	—	—
3du	xvalite	—	—	—	—	—	—	hválita	chwalitej	chwalitaj/-tej	—	—	—
1pl	xvalimъ	xválim	xválim	xválymo	xválim(e)	hvalime	hvâlīmo	hválimo	chwalimy	chwalimy	chwaimy	chválíme	chválime
2pl	xvalite	xválice	xválite	xvályte	xválite	hvalite	hvâlīte	hválite	chwaliśo	chwaliće	chwalicie	chválíte	chválite
3pl	xvalętъ	xváljac‘	xváljat	xváljat‘	xváljăt	hvaljat	hvâlē	hválijo	chwale	chwala	chwalą	chválí	chvália

^a Ukrainian has epenthetic -l- after labial consonants in 1sg and 3pl (1sg ljubljú, 2sg ljúbyš … 3pl ljúblat‘ ‘love’). Class I verbs with velar stems (e.g. mohtý [< *mog-ti] ‘can’) show the palatalized reflex of the velar in the whole paradigm (1sg móžu, 2sg móžeš … 3pl móžut‘) (Belarusian and Russian preserve the velar in 1sg and 3pl).

Table 9.5 Present tense -a-class (South and West Slavic) and -j-class (Lower Sorbian)

	LCS	Bul	Mac	BCMS	Sln	LSo	USo	Pol	Cze	Slk	LCS	LSo
inf	[padati]	—	—	pȁdati	pádati	padaś	padać	padać	padat	padať	[stojati]	stojaś
1sg	[padajǫ]	pádam	padam	pȁdām	pâdam	padam	padam	padam	padám	padám	[stojǫ]	stojm
2sg	[padaješi]	pádaš	padaš	pȁdāš	pâdaš	padaš	padaš	padasz	padáš	padáš	[stojiši]	stojš
3sg	[padajetъ]	páda	pada	pȁdā	pâda	pada	pada	pada	padá	padá	[stojitъ]	stoj
1du	[padajevě]	—	—	—	pâdava	padamej	padamoj	—	—	—	[stojivě]	stojmej
2du	[padajeta]	—	—	—	pâdata	padatej	padataj/-tej	—	—	—	[stojita]	stojtej
3du	[padajete]	—	—	—	pâdata	padatej	padataj/-tej	—	—	—	[stojite]	stojtej
1pl	[padajemъ]	pádame	padame	pȁdāmo	pâdamo	padamy	padamy	padamy	padáme	padáme	[stojimъ]	stojmy
2pl	[padajete]	pádate	padate	pȁdāte	pâdate	padaśo	padaće	padacie	padáte	padáte	[stojite]	stojśo
3pl	[padajǫtъ]	pádat	padaat	pȁdajū	pâdajo	padaju	padaju/-ja	padają	padájí	pádajú	[stojętъ]	stoje

Table 9.6 Present tense ‘be’

	LCS	Bel	Rus	Ukr	Bul^d	Mac^d	BCMS	Sln^e	LSo	USo	Pol	Cze	Slk
inf	byti	byc‘	byt‘	búty	—	—	bȉti	bíti	byś	być	być	být	byt‘
1sg	(j)esmь	ësc‘^a	est‘^a	je(st‘)^a^, ^c	săm	sum	(jè)sam	sə̏m	som	sym	(jeste)m	jsem	som
2sg	(j)esi	ësc‘^a	est‘^a	je(st‘)^a^, ^c	si	si	(jè)si	sȉ	sy	sy	(jeste)ś	jsi	si
3sg	(j)estъ	ësc‘^a	est‘^a	je(st‘)^a^, ^c	e	e (Ø)	(jȅst[e]) je	jȅ	jo	je	jest (Ø)	je (Ø)	je (Ø)
1du	(j)esvě	—	—	—	—	—	—	svȁ	smej	smój	—	—	—
2du	(j)esta	—	—	—	—	—	—	stȁ	stej	staj/stej	—	—	—
3du	(j)este	—	—	—	—	—	—	stȁ	stej	staj/stej	—	—	—
1pl	(j)esmъ	ësc‘^a	est‘^a	je(st‘)^a^, ^c	sme	sme	(jè)smo	smȍ	smy	smy	(jeste)śmy	jsme	sme
2pl	(j)este	ësc‘^a	est‘*	je(st‘)^a^, ^c	ste	ste	(jè)ste	stȅ	sćo	sće	(jeste)ście	jste	ste
3pl	sǫtъ	ësc‘^a	est‘/sut‘*^b	je(st‘)^a^, ^c	sa	se (Ø)	(jè)su	sȍ	su	su	są (Ø)	jsou (Ø)	sú (Ø)

Note. Except for East Slavic, brackets discriminate clitics (always shorter) used as auxiliaries in periphrases.

^a Emphatic present-tense forms in East Slavic.

^b Archaic.

^c Ukrainian jest‘ is uncommon (the paradigm jes‘m, jes‘/jesý, jest‘; jes‘mó, jesté, sút‘ is archaic).

^d Bulgarian and Macedonian have alternative be-paradigms with the stem băd- and bid-, respectively, for use in future periphrases and da-constructions.

^e Slovene 1sg sə̏m is phonetic (orthography: sem). The bíti-forms are clitic in the perfect periphrasis.

Idiosyncratic negation: BCMS: nísam, nísi, níje … nísu; Lower Sorbian: njejsom, njejsy … njejsu; Slovene: nísəm, nísi, ní, … níso; Upper Sorbian: njejsem, njejsy … njejsu; East Slavic: ne (nét with elided predicate nominals; cf. Russian ón studént, a já nét ‘he is a student, but I am not’).

(Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 307; extended)

Table 9.7 Present tense ‘have’

	Bel	Rus	Ukr	Bul	Mac	BCMS	Sln	LSo	USo	Pol	Cze	Slk
inf	mec‘	imét‘	máty	—	—	ìmati	iméti	měś	měć	mieć	mít	mat‘
1sg	máju	iméju	máju	ímam	imam	ȉmām	imám	mam	mam	mam	mám	mám
2sg	máješ	iméeš	máješ	ímaš	imaš	ȉmāš	imáš	maš	maš	masz	máš	máš
3sg	máje	iméet	máje	íma	ima	ȉmā	imá	ma	ma	ma	má	má
1du	—	—	—	—	—	—	imáva	mamej	mamoj	—	—	—
2du	—	—	—	—	—	—	imáta	matej	mataj/matej	—	—	—
3du	—	—	—	—	—	—	imáta	matej	mataj/matej	—	—	—
1pl	májem	iméem	májem(o)	ímame	imame	ȉmāmo	imámo	mamy	mamy	mamy	máme	máme
2pl	májece	iméete	májete	ímate	imate	ȉmāte	imáte	maśo	maće	macie	máte	máte
3pl	májuc‘	iméju	májut‘	ímat	imaat	ȉmājū	imájo	maju	maja	mają	mají	majú

Note. LCS had three verbs based on the root (j)ęm-/(j)ьm- (Reference Townsend and JandaTownsend & Janda 1996: 216): (i) athematic jьměti ‘have’ (jьmamь, jьmasi … jьmǫtъ or jьmějǫtъ), (ii) (j)ęti ‘take’ (jьmǫ, jьmeši … jьmǫtъ), and (iii) jьmati ‘grasp, seize’ ((j)emjǫ, (j)emješi … (j)emjǫtъ). Reflexes of (ii) underly the Ukrainian ‘m-future’ (Section 9.2.4).

Idiosyncratic negation: BCMS nêmām, nêmāš … némajū; Bulgarian: njámam, njámaš … njámat; Macedonian: nemam, nemaš … nemaat; Slovene: nímam, nímaš … nímajo; Upper Sorbian: nimam, nimaš … nimaja (but inf njeměć).

(Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 307)

See Chapter 8 on the development of inflections. Here it may suffice to give a synopsis of Slavic present-tense inflections (Table 9.8).Footnote ⁷

Table 9.8 Present-tense inflections

	sg			du			pl
	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
LCS	-ǫ/-mь	-ši	-tъ	-vě	-ta	-te	-mъ	-te	-ǫntъ/-ęntъ
Bulgarian	-ă/-m	-š	-Ø	—	—	—	-m(e)	-te	-(j)ăt
Macedonian	-m	-š	-Ø	—	—	—	-me	-te	-(j)at
BCMS	-m	-š	-Ø	—	—	—	-mo	-te	-(j)u/-e
Slovene	-m	-š	-Ø	-va	-ta	-ta	-mo	-te	-(j)o (-e)
Slovak	-m	-š	-Ø	—	—	—	-me	-te	-(j)u/-ia
Czech	-u/-i/-m	-š	-Ø	—	—	—	-me	-te	-ou/-(j)í
Lower Sorbian	-u/-m	-š	-Ø	-mej	-tej	-tej	-my	-śo	-u/-e
Upper Sorbian	-u/-m	-š	-Ø	-moj	-taj/-tej	-taj/-tej	-my	-će	-(j)u/-(j)a
Polish	-ę/-m	-sz	-Ø	—	—	—	-my	-cie	-(j)ą
Belarusian	-u	-š	-Ø/-c‘	—	—	—	-m	-ce	-uc‘/-jac‘
Russian	-u	-š‘	-t	—	—	—	-m	-te	-ut/-jat
Ukrainian	-u	-š	-Ø/-t‘	—	—	—	-mo	-te	-ut‘/-jat‘

9.2.2 Past

9.2.2.1 Aorist and Imperfect

BCMS, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Sorbian retain the synthetic past tense forms aorist and imperfect.Footnote ⁸ The aorist presents past situations as finished, the imperfect as continuous (Reference SonnenhauserSonnenhauser 2006, Reference Sonnenhauser2013). Not surprisingly, aorists are typically perfective, imperfects imperfective. This matching is complete in BCMS, Sorbian, and Macedonian (Reference Friedman, Comrie and CorbettFriedman 1993: 269). By contrast, Bulgarian employs all possible pairings.Footnote ⁹ Therefore, it is fair to say that the opposition aorist/imperfect is distinct from the opposition perfective/imperfective in Bulgarian,Footnote ¹⁰ whereas the former merely ‘doubles’ the latter in BCMS, Macedonian, and Sorbian.

Inflections are in Table 9.9.Footnote ¹¹ Only the 2/3sg and 3pl (BCMS) are distinctive. Except for Sorbian and -a-verbs in Bulgarian,Footnote ¹² identification of the remaining forms is assured by different stems: While aorist stems are diverse, imperfect stems regularly end in a marker based on LCS -ě- (modern -e-/-a-).

Table 9.9 Aorist and imperfect inflections

		sg	du	pl
BCMS	1	-h	—	-smo
	2	-Ø // -še	—	-ste
	3	-Ø // -še	—	-še // -hu
Bulgarian	1	-x	—	-xme
	2	-Ø // -še	—	-xte
	3	-Ø // -še	—	-xa
Macedonian	1	-v	—	-vme
	2	-Ø // -še	—	-vte
	3	-Ø // -še	—	-a
Lower Sorbian	1	-ch	-chmej	-chmy
	2	-Ø // -šo	-štej	-šćo
	3	-Ø // -šo	-štej	-chu
Upper Sorbian	1	-ch	-chmoj	-chmy
	2	-Ø // -še	-štaj/-štej	-šće
	3	-Ø // -še	-štaj/-štej	-chu

Table 9.10 gives illustrations. Table 9.11 lists imperfect ‘be’ given its relevance for the pluperfect (Section 9.2.2.5). Table 9.12 gives the imperfect forms of Bulgarian štă, as it occurs in the future (II)-in-the-past (Sections 9.2.2.7–9.2.2.8).

Table 9.10 Aorist and imperfect forms

		sg		pl
		aor	ipf	aor	ipf
BCMS čȕ-ti ‘hear’	1	čȕ-h	čȕj-ā-h	čȕ-smo	čȕj-ā-smo
	2	čȕ-Ø	čȕj-ā-še	čȕ-ste	čȕj-ā-ste
	3	čȕ-Ø	čȕj-ā-še	čȕ-še	čȕj-ā-hu
mòl-i-ti ‘ask’^a	1	mòl-i-h	mȍl-j-ā-h	mȍl-ī-smo	mȍl-j-ā-smo
	2	mȍl-ī-Ø	mȍl-j-ā-še	mȍl-ī-ste	mȍl-j-ā-ste
	3	mȍl-ī-Ø	mȍl-j-ā-še	mȍl-ī-še	mȍl-j-ā-hu
Bulgarian^b píš-ă ‘write’	1	pís-a-x	píš-e-x	pís-a-xme	píš-e-xme
	2	pís-a-Ø	píš-e-še	pís-a-xte	píš-e-xte
	3	pís-a-Ø	píš-e-še	pís-a-xa	píš-e-xa
čet-ắ ‘read’^c	1	čét-o-x	cetj-á-x	čét-o-xme	cetj-á-xme
	2	čét-e-Ø	cetj-á-še	čét-o-xte	cetj-á-xte
	3	čét-e-Ø	cetj-á-še	čét-o-xa	cetj-á-xa
íma-m ‘have’	1	ím-á-x	ím-a-x	ím-á-xme	ím-a-xme
	2	ím-á-Ø	ím-a-še	ím-á-xte	ím-a-xte
	3	ím-á-Ø	ím-a-še	ím-á-xa	ím-a-xa
Upper Sorbian njesć ‘carry’	1	nanjes-e-ch	njes-e-ch	nanjes-e-chmy	njes-e-chmy
	2	nanjes-e-Ø	njes-e-še	nanjes-e-šće	njes-e-šće
	3	nanjes-e-Ø	njes-e-še	nanjes-e-chu	njes-e-chu

^a Stem-final -i- becomes -j- before the imperfect suffix -ā-.

^b Unlike -e-, the -á-suffix palatalizes preceding consonants.

^c Both píšă and četắ belong to the -e-class but differ as to their infinitive stems: pís-a- vs. čet-. The latter requires the insertion of -o/e- (never stressed) before the aorist inflection.

Table 9.11 Imperfect ‘be’

		sg	du	pl
BCMS^a	1	bȉj-ā-h	—	bȉj-ā-smo
	2	bȉj-ā-še	—	bȉj-ā-ste
	3	bȉj-ā-še	—	bȉj-ā-hu
Bulgarian^b	1	bj-á-x	—	bj-á-xme
	2	b-é-še (bé)^c	—	bj-á-xte
	3	b-é-še (bé)	—	bj-á-xa
Macedonian^d	1	b-e-v	—	b-e-vme
	2	b-e-še	—	b-e-vte
	3	b-e-še (bi)	—	b-e-a
Lower Sorbian	1	b-ě-ch	b-ě-chmej	b-ě-chmy
	2	b-ě-šo (bě)	b-ě-štej	b-ě-šćo
	3	b-ě-šo (bě)	b-ě-štej	b-ě-chu
Upper Sorbian	1	b-ě-ch	b-ě-chmoj	b-ě-chmy
	2	b-ě-še (bě)	b-ě-štaj	b-ě-šće
	3	b-ě-še (bě)	b-ě-štej	b-ě-chu

^a These forms are ijekavian. Ekavian uses the stem bȅj-. An alternative ijekavian variant is bj-ȅ-h, bj-ȅ-še … bj-ȅ-hu (Reference Browne, Comrie and CorbettBrowne 1993: 338).

^b Note that the notation ‘bj-’ follows Cyrillic orthography. The consonant is actually only palatalized by the following imperfect marker (hence b‘-á-).

^c In brackets is an alternative aorist form used like an imperfect. It is not used in periphrases in Bulgarian and is marginal in Macedonian.

^d The Macedonian reflex of LCS *-ě- is consistently -e-. It does not palatalize preceding consonants.

Table 9.12 Imperfect štă ‘want’ (Bulgarian)

	sg	pl
1	štj-á-x	štj-á-xme
2	št-é-še	štj-á-xte
3	št-é-še	štj-á-xa

9.2.2.2 Periphrastic Perfect/Global Past

Alongside aorist and imperfect , BCMS, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Sorbian retain a periphrastic perfect.Footnote ¹³ It denotes a present state as being the result of a past situation. A common distinction is between resultative and experiential/existential perfect: In Slavic, the former uses perfective l-forms (e.g. Upper Sorbian sym napisała ‘I have written’) and focuses on the resultant state. The latter uses imperfective l-forms (sym pisała) and focuses on the situation preceding the result without precisely locating it on the time axis.

The remaining Slavic languages lost aorist and imperfect forms. Their temporal functions are today expressed by what still looks like a perfect but is a global past. Its forms denote situations before the moment of speech, leaving further details unspecified. Therefore, they can, in appropriate contexts, be interpreted like an im-/perfective past, perfect, or pluperfect.

Forms are very similar in Czech, Polish, Slovak, Sorbian, BCMS, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Slovene (see Section 9.2.2.3 on East Slavic). They contain a present-tense form of the be-auxiliary (see Table 9.7) and an l-form agreeing in number and (often) gender with the subject. Unlike the remaining languages, Bulgarian and Macedonian have two variants of l-forms, one based on the infinitive/aorist stem , the other on the imperfect stem (present stem + imperfect marker). Both types can be of either aspect in Bulgarian. In Macedonian, the former is always perfective, the latter always imperfective. See Chapter 8 for more details.

Third person auxiliaries are null in Czech, Polish, Slovak, and Macedonian. The Polish auxiliaries are enclitic and syntactically mobile (Reference EmbickEmbick 1995, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 372, Reference Franks, Bański, Dziwirek, Coats and VakareliyskaFranks & Bański 1999); see (3).

1. a. Posz-l-i=ście?(Polish)
  go-l-pl=2pl
  ‘Did you go?’
1. b. Gdzie=ście posz-l-i?
  where=2pl go-l-pl
  ‘Where did you go?’

Sentential negation differs: in South Slavic and Sorbian, the negation attaches to the auxiliary. In West Slavic (except Sorbian), it is on the l-form.

Table 9.13 gives illustrations. Languages using auxiliaries in all persons are in the upper half.Footnote ¹⁴

Table 9.13 Periphrastic perfect/global past forms in Slavic languages

		sg	du	pl
BCMS písati ‘write’	1	písa-o-Ø sam	—	písa-l-i smo
	2	písa-l-a si	—	písa-l-e ste
	3	písa-l-o je	—	písa-l-a su
Bulgarian četắ ‘read’	1	čé-l-Ø săm	—	čé-l-i sme
	2	čé-l-a si	—	čé-l-i ste
	3	čé-l-o e	—	čé-l-i sa
Lower Sorbian słyšaś ‘hear’	1	słyša-ł-Ø som	słyša-ł-ej smej	słyša-l-i smy
	2	słyša-ł-a sy	słyša-ł-ej stej	słyša-l-i sćo
	3	słyša-ł-o jo	słyša-ł-ej stej	słyša-l-i su
Slovene pohváliti ‘praise’	1	pohváli-l-Ø səm	pohváli-l-a sva	pohváli-l-i smo
	2	pohváli-l-a si	pohváli-l-i sta	pohváli-l-e ste
	3	pohváli-l-o je	pohváli-l-i sta	pohváli-l-a so
Upper Sorbian dźěłać ‘work’	1	dźěła-ł-Ø sym	dźěła-ł-oj smój	dźěła-l-i smy
	2	dźěła-ł-a sy	dźěła-ł-aj staj	dźěła-l-i sće
	3	dźěła-ł-o je	dźěła-ł-ej stej	dźěła-ł-e su
Czech udělat ‘do’	1	uděla-l-Ø jsem	—	uděla-l-i jsme
	2	uděla-l-a jsi	—	uděla-l-y jste
	3	uděla-l-o Ø	—	uděla-l-a Ø
Macedonian moli ‘beg’	1	mole-l-Ø sum	—	mole-l-e sme
	2	mole-l-a si	—	mole-l-e ste
	3	mole-l-o Ø	—	mole-l-e Ø
Polish prosić ‘ask’	1	prosi-ł-Ø=em	—	prosi-l-i=śmy
	2	prosi-ł-a=ś	—	prosi-ł-y=ście
	3	prosi-ł-o=Ø	—	prosi-ł-y=Ø
Slovak vola‘ ‘call’	1	vola-l-Ø som	—	vola-l-i sme
	2	vola-l-a si	—	vola-l-i ste
	3	vola-l-o Ø	—	vola-l-i Ø

9.2.2.3 Synthetic Global Past

East Slavic past tenses are l-forms without auxiliaries. As l-forms agree only in number and (in the singular) gender, the lack of person agreement is regularly compensated for by the (non-emphatic) use of subject pronouns. Table 9.14 gives illustrations.

Table 9.14 Synthetic global past-tense forms in East Slavic

		sg	pl
Belarusian čytác’ ‘read’	1	(ja) čytá-ŭ-Ø	(my) čytá-l-i
	2	(ty) čytá-l-a	(vy) čytá-l-i
	3	(janó) čytá-l-o	(janý) čytá-l-i
Russian prosít‘ ‘ask’	1	(ja) prosí-l-Ø	(my) prosí-l-i
	2	(ty) prosí-l-a	(vy) prosí-l-i
	3	(onó) prosí-l-o	(oní) prosí-l-i
Ukrainian^a búty ‘be’	1	(ja) bu-v-Ø	(my) bu-l-ý
	2	(ty) bu-l-á	(vy) bu-l-ý
	3	(vonó) bu-l-ó	(voný) bu-l-ý

^a South-Western Ukrainian dialects have past tense forms involving agreement markers: e.g. xodý-l-y=s‘mo ‘go-l-pl=1pl’ (Reference Žovtobrjux, Moldovan and MoldovanŽovtobrjux & Moldovan 2005: 544).

9.2.2.4 N/T-Perfect

Macedonian (especially Western Macedonian [Reference Friedman, Comrie and CorbettFriedman 1993: 270]; marginally Bulgarian [Reference Lindstedt, Rothstein and ThieroffLindstedt 2010: 410]) possesses a second perfect formed with sum ‘be’ or ima ‘have’ plus an n/t-participle. If ima is used (which is mostly with transitive verbs), the participle shows default agreement (def) (imam vide-n-o ‘I have seen’). If sum is used (intransitive verbs), the participle agrees with the subject (sme dojde-n-i ‘we have come’). This new perfect is increasingly expanding into the written language. Once established, it encodes resultativity, whereas the old l-perfect loses this function and becomes associated with evidentiality (Section 9.5). The example in (4) illustrates the former point (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 382).

(4)
Členot se ima razvie-n-o (Macedonian)
article.def refl have.prs.3sg develop-ptcp-def
od pokazni zamenki.
from demonstrative pronouns
‘The article has developed from demonstrative pronouns.’

N/t-perfects (always with ‘have’) are also found in spoken Czech; see (5) (Reference Short, Comrie and CorbettShort 1993a: 499).Footnote ¹⁵

(5)

At‘	to	tu		máte	pěkně	uklize-n-o,	(Czech)
part	this	here		have.prs.2pl	beautifully	tidy.up-ptcp-def
než	přijde		séf!
before	come.3sg		boss
‘Make sure you have the place properly tidied up before the boss gets here!’

Similar structures with participles agreeing with the direct object are attested in Czech, Polish, Russian, and Sorbian; see (6) (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 296, Reference Giger and KempgenGiger 2009: 272, Reference Anstatt, Clasmeier and WölkeAnstatt et al. 2020: 123).

(6)

a.	Mam	ksiażk-ę	prze-czyta-n-ą.		(Polish)
	have.prs.1sg	book-acc.sg.f	pfv-read-ptcp-acc.sg.f
	‘I have the book (all) read.’
b.	U	menjá	obéd	s-váre-n-Ø.	(Russian)
	at	me.gen	lunch.nom.sg.m	pfv-cook-ptcp-nom.sg.m
	‘I have the lunch cooked.’
c.	Mam	poliwk-u	z-warje-n-u.	(Upper Sorbian)
	have.prs.1sg	soup-acc.sg.f	pfv-cook-ptcp-acc.sg.n
	‘I have the soup prepared.’

9.2.2.5 Pluperfect

All Slavic languages except Russian have a pluperfect (see Reference SičinavaSičinava 2013; Russian dialects retain successor constructions, see Reference Petruxin, Sičinava and MoldovanPetruxin & Sičinava 2006: 206–210). While in its standard meaning, it denotes a past situation anterior to another past situation, it expresses further meanings in appropriate contexts. In general, the pluperfect is stylistically marked (colloquial, bookish, or/and archaic). The main verb is an l-form of either aspect. Depending on what type(s) of past tense a language uses, the auxiliary is either imperfect or global past. Tables 9.15–9.16 give illustrations.Footnote ¹⁶

Table 9.15 Periphrastic pluperfect with imperfect-tense auxiliaries

		sg	du	pl
BCMS^a písati ‘write’	1	písao bȉjāh	—	písali bȉjāsmo
	2	písala bȉjāše	—	písale bȉjāste
	3	písalo bȉjāše	—	písala bȉjāhu
Bulgarian četắ ‘read’	1	čél bjáx	—	čéli bjáxme
	2	čéla béše	—	čéli bjáxte
	3	čélo béše	—	čéli bjáxa
Lower Sorbian słyšaś ‘hear’	1	słyšał běch	słyšałej běchmej	słyšali běchmy
	2	słyšała běšo (bě)	słyšałej běštej	słyšali běšćo
	3	słyšało běšo (bě)	słyšałej běštej	słyšali běchu
Macedonian^b moli ‘beg’	1	molel bev	—	molele bevme
	2	molela beše	—	molele bevte
	3	molelo beše	—	molele bea
Upper Sorbian dźěłać ‘work’	1	dźěłał běch	dźěłałoj běchmoj	dźěłali běchmy
	2	dźěłała běše (bě)	dźěłałaj běštaj	dźěłali běšće
	3	dźěłało běše (bě)	dźěłałej běštej	dźěłałe běchu

^a Imperfect auxiliaries are rarely used in BCMS (Reference Browne, Comrie and CorbettBrowne 1993: 330–331), so the forms in Table 9.16 are more common.

^b Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex and Cubberley (2006: 296) mention a pluperfect variant in Macedonian formed with beše (imperfect 3sg of sum ‘be’) plus the periphrastic perfect (e.g. beše sum storil ‘I had done’).

Table 9.16 Periphrastic pluperfect with global-past auxiliaries

		sg	du	pl
BCMS četắ ‘read’	1	písao sam bȉo	—	písali sme bîli
	2	písala si bíla	—	písa-l-e ste bíle
	3	písalo je bîlo	—	písa-l-a su bíla
Lower Sorbian^a słyšaś ‘hear’	1	słyšał som był	słyšałej smej byłej	słyšali smy byli
	2	słyšała sy była	słyšałej stej byłej	słyšali sćo byli
	3	słyšało jo było	słyšałej stej byłej	słyšali su byli
Slovene pohváliti ‘praise’	1	pohválil səm bîl	pohválila sva bilȁ	pohválili smo bilî
	2	pohválila si bilȁ	pohválili sta bilî	pohválile ste bilȅ
	3	pohválilo je bilô	pohválili sta bilî	pohválila so bilȁ
Upper Sorbian dźěłać ‘work’	1	dźěłał sym był	dźěłałoj smój byłoj	dźěłali smy byli
	2	dźěłała sy była	dźěłałaj staj byłaj	dźěłali sće byli
	3	dźěłało je było	dźěłałej stej byłej	dźěłałe su byłe
Czech^b udělat ‘do’	1	udělal jsem byl	—	udělali jsme byli
	2	udělala jsi byla	—	udělaly jste byly
	3	udělalo Ø bylo	—	udělala Ø byla
Polish^c prosić ‘ask’	1	prosił=em był	—	prosili=śmy byli
	2	prosiła=ś była	—	prosiły=ście były
	3	prosiło=Ø było	—	prosiły=Ø były
Slovak volať ‘call’	1	volal som bol	—	volali sme boli
	2	volala si bola	—	volali ste boli
	3	volalo Ø bolo	—	volali Ø boli
Belarusian^d pryéxac‘ ‘come’	1	(ja) pryéxaŭ byŭ	—	(my) pryéxali bylí
	2	(ty) pryéxala bylá	—	(vy) pryéxali bylí
	3	(janó) pryéxalo byló	—	(janý) pryéxali bylí
Ukrainian xodýty ‘go’	1	(ja) xodýv buv	—	(my) xodýly bulý
	2	(ty) xodýla bulá	—	(vy) xodýly bulý
	3	(vonó) xodýlo buló	—	(voný) xodýly bulý

^a This pluperfect formation is dialectal in Sorbian (Reference ŠewcŠewc 1968: 179, Reference Stone, Comrie and CorbettStone 1993: 636).

^b The pluperfect is strongly archaic in present-day Czech.

^c The pluperfect is obsolete in Polish but still found as an archaism (Reference Rothstein, Comrie and CorbettRothstein 1993: 711).

^d The Belarusian pluperfect is confined to colloquial speech and the language of literature. Unlike Reference Mayo, Comrie and CorbettMayo (1993: 913) and Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń (1997: 373), Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley (2006: 296) claim that it can only have the form ‘global past of byc‘ + past gerund’ (janá bylá pračytáŭšy ‘she had read’) which is reminiscent of the ‘new perfect’ attested in some (North-)Western East Slavic dialects.

9.2.2.6 n/t-Pluperfect

Parallel to the n/t-perfect, Macedonian has an n/t-pluperfect. It involves imperfect-tense auxiliaries where the n/t-perfect has present-tense ones. This new pluperfect has by now completely assumed the resultative meaning once immanent in the old l-pluperfect. It is limited to witnessed situations (Reference Friedman, Comrie and CorbettFriedman 1993: 271–272). For non-witnessed situations, its auxiliary is an l-form (e.g. imala ‘[she] had’).

9.2.2.7 Future-In-The-Past

This form (also called past future, futurum praeteriti) is unique to Bulgarian and Macedonian. It denotes situations that were to be completed in the past and are posterior relative to another past situation. Grammars usually classify it as a tense, whereas many scholars regard it as a modal category given its frequent use in conditional clauses. In Bulgarian, the periphrasis consists of the imperfect of štă (Table 9.12) plus da plus present tense. In Macedonian, the future particle ḱe combines with an imperfect-tense form of the main verb; see Table 9.17.

Table 9.17 Future-in-the past in Bulgarian and Macedonian

		sg	pl
Bulgarian četắ ‘read’	1	štjax da četắ	štjáxme da četém
	2	šteše da četéš	štjáxte da četéte
	3	šteše da četé	štjáxa da četắt
Macedonian moli ‘beg’	1	ḱe molev	ḱe molevme
	2	ḱe moleše	ḱe molevte
	3	ḱe moleše	ḱe molea

Sentential negation in Bulgarian involves ne on the auxiliary (ne štjáx da četắ).Footnote ¹⁷ In Macedonian, either ne is attached to ḱe, or ḱe is replaced by invariant (3sg) nemaše da.

9.2.2.8 Future II-in-the-Past

Unique to Bulgarian, this form (also called past future perfect, futurum exactum praeteriti) denotes past situations posterior relative to another past situation which itself is anterior relative to a third past situation. It is rarely used and commonly replaced by the future-in-the-past. Its forms replace the present-tense verb after da with the respective perfect form; see Table 9.18.

Table 9.18 Future II-in-the past (Bulgarian)

		sg	pl
Bulgarian četắ ‘read’	1	(ne) štjax da săm čel	(ne) štjáxme da sme čéli
	2	(ne) šteše da si čéla	(ne) štjáxte da ste čéli
	3	(ne) šteše da e čélo	(ne) štjáxa da sa čéli

9.2.3 Future

All Slavic languages have at least one future form (‘future I’). BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian have two (‘future II’).

9.2.3.1 Future I

In East and West Slavic plus Slovene, the future I has synthetic and periphrastic forms the choice between which typically correlates with aspect (synthetic perfective, periphrastic imperfective). By contrast, South Slavic languages lack synthetic future forms altogether. There is another divide: In periphrases, East and West Slavic use the be-auxiliary, whereas South Slavic employs auxiliaries related to LCS ‘want’. Slovene is special, as it has a periphrasis with ‘be’ and of either aspect. Additionally, Slovene has a synthetic perfective future.

Synthetic Future Forms

Present-tense perfective verbs with future reference (East and West Slavic, Slovene) are illustrated in (7).Footnote ¹⁸

(7)

a.	Z-róbl-jat‘		povtornyj		analiz.			(Ukrainian)
	pfv-make-prs.3pl		repeated		analysis
	‘They shall make a second analysis.’
b.	Wozm-u		wšo.			(Upper Sorbian)
	take.pfv.prs.1sg		everything
	‘I shall take everything.’
c.	To	na-právi-m		jútri.			(Slovene)
	this	pfv-do-prs.1sg		tomorrow
	‘I shall do this tomorrow.’

Ukrainian has a synthetic imperfective future (‘m-future’) which developed from an analytic structure: imperfective infinitive + present tense of nowadays obsolete játy (cf. LCS jęti ‘take’: jьmu, jьmeši … jьmǫtъ): čytáty-mu, čytáty-meš, čytáty-me; čytáty-memo, čytáty-mete, čytáty-mut‘ ‘shall read’.Footnote ¹⁹

Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian have a synthetic imperfective future for verbs denoting a unidirectional motion, adding the prefix po-: Czech po-pluji ‘I shall swim’; Upper Sorbian po-njesu ‘I shall carry’. The future of Sorbian ‘have’ is formed in a similar fashion: z-měju ‘I shall have’ (Reference Stone, Comrie and CorbettStone 1993: 637).

Periphrastic Future Forms

In East and West Slavic languages plus Slovene, the periphrastic future uses be-auxiliaries (Table 9.20). They combine with an imperfective infinitive (East and West Slavic) or an imperfective l-form (Polish, Slovene, eastern dialects of Slovak [Reference StieberStieber 1973]); see (8) and (9), respectively.Footnote ²⁰

(8)
a. Bude-m prosi-t‘. (Slovak)
be;fut-1sg ask.ipfv-inf
‘I shall be asking.’
b. Vin bude prosy-ty. (Ukrainian)
he be;fut.3sg ask.ipfv-inf
‘He shall be asking.’

(9)
a. Będzie-cie prosi-l-i. (Polish)
be;fut-2pl ask.ipfv-l-pl.mps
‘You shall be asking.’
b. Prosí-l-a bo-m. (Slovene)
ask.ipfv-l-sg.f be;fut-1sg
‘I shall be asking.’

In Slovene, the l-form can also be perfective, as can be the infinitive in colloquial and dialectal Sorbian (Reference FasskeFasske 1981: 253, Reference Stone, Comrie and CorbettStone 1993: 637, Reference Anstatt, Clasmeier and WölkeAnstatt et al. 2020: 130); see (10) and (11), respectively.

(10)
Po-hváli-l-Ø bom. (Slovene)
pfv-praise-l-sg.m be;fut-1sg
‘I shall praise.’

(11)
Ja bud-u na-pisa-ś. (Lower Sorbian)
I be;fut-1sg pfv-write-inf
‘I shall write.’

Sentential negation is on the future auxiliary (Czech nebudu …, Polish nie będę …, Russian ne búdu …). In Slovene, the emerging prosodic unit bears stress on the auxiliary (Brȁt se ne bô ožénil ‘My brother will not marry’; Reference Priestly, Comrie and CorbettPriestly 1993: 429).

BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian future auxiliaries are related to LCS xъtěti/xotěti ‘want’. In BCMS, they are (mostly clitic) forms of htȅti ‘want’ (Table 9.21) and combine with an infinitive of either aspect; see (12).

(12)
Slâvko će (na-)písa-ti písmo. (BCMS)
S. want.fut.3sg pfv-write-inf M.acc
‘Slavko shall be writing (write) a letter.’

If the infinitive precedes the clitic auxiliary, infinitival -ti is dropped as shown in (13a), although it survives in Croatian spelling; see (13b).Footnote ²¹

(13)
a. Vȉd(j)e=ć-u Màriju. (Bosnian/Serbian)
see[.inf]=want.fut-1sg M.acc
‘I shall see Marija.’
b. Vȉdje-t ć-u Màriju. (Croatian)
see-inf want.fut-1sg M.acc
‘I shall see Marija.’

Sentential negation uses ne- directly on the auxiliary (neću, etc.).

Bulgarian and Macedonian have a future particle which combines with a present-tense verb of either aspect; see (14). When negated, it is replaced with invariant njáma da/nema da. Alternatively, ne attaches to the particle (Bulgarian ne šté, Macedonian ne ḱe), a variant usually associated with modal nuances (Reference Rivero, Simeonova, Szajbel-Keck, Burns and KavitskayaRivero & Simeonova 2015).Footnote ²²

(14)
a. šte (pro-)čet-á (Bulgarian)
want.fut pfv-read-1sg
‘I shall be writing’
b. ḱe (pro-)čita-m (Macedonian)
want.fut prv-read-1sg
‘I shall be writing’

Table 9.19 shows the inventory of future forms in Slavic (see Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 378; see Reference Andersen, Eksell and VintherAndersen 2006 on their evolution). Tables 9.20–9.21 list the paradigms of future be- and want-auxiliaries for those languages that employ them.

Table 9.19 Inventory of future tense forms

	Periphrastic								Synthetic
	pfv				ipfv
	‘want’		‘be’		‘want’		‘be’		pfv	ipfv
	inf	prs	inf	-l-	inf	prs	inf	-l-	pfv	ipfv
Bulgarian		+				+
Macedonian		+				+
BCMS	+				+
Slovene			(+)	+				+	+
Slovak							+		+
Czech							+		+
Lower Sorbian			(+)				+		+
Upper Sorbian			(+)				+		+
Polish							+	+	+
Belarusian							+		+
Russian							+		+
Ukrainian							+		+	+

Table 9.20 Slavic future auxiliaries based on LCS byti ‘be’

	sg			du			pl
	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
BCMS	bȕdēm	bȕdēš	bȕdē	—	—	—	bȕdēmo	bȕdēte	bȕdū
Slovene	bom	boš	bo	bova	bosta/bota	bosta/bota	bomo	boste/bote	bodo/bojo
Slovak	budem	budeš	bude	—	—	—	budeme	budete	budú
Czech	budu	budeš	bude	—	—	—	budeme	budete	budou
Lower Sorbian	budu/buźom	buźoš	buźo	buźomej	buźotej	buźotej	buźomy	buźośo	budu
Upper Sorbian	budu	budźeš	budźe	budźemoj	budźetaj/-tej	budźetaj/-tej	budźemy	budźeće	budu/budź(ej)a
Polish	będę	będziesz	będzie	—	—	—	będziemy	będziecie	będą
Belarusian	búdu	búdzeš	búdze	—	—	—	búdzem	búdzece	búduc‘
Russian	búdu	búdeš‘	búdet	—	—	—	búdem	búdete	búdut
Ukrainian	búdu	búdeš	búde	—	—	—	búdemo	búdete	búdut‘

Note. The Slovene auxiliary is a second-position clitic. As for the rest, the neutral word order is auxiliary > main verb (e.g. Russian búdu pisát‘) but can be reversed (pisát‘ búdu).

Table 9.21 Future auxiliaries based on LCS xotěti/xъtěti ‘want’

	inf	sg			du			pl
	inf	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
BCMS	htȅti	hòću (ću)	hȍćeš (ćeš)	hȍće (će)	—	—	—	hȍćemo (ćemo)	hȍćete (ćete)	hòće (ćē)
Bulgarian^a	—	šte	šte	šte	—	—	—	šte	šte	šte
Macedonian^a	—	ḱe	ḱe	ḱe	—	—	—	ḱe	ḱe	ḱe

Idiosyncratic negation: BCMS: néću, nêćeš … néćē; Bulgarian: njáma da (ne šté with modal nuances); Macedonian: nema da (ne ḱé with modal nuances); Slovene: nóčem/néčem, nóčeš/néčeš … nóčejo/néčejo (no future auxiliary!); Lower Sorbian: njok, njocoš … njekśě; Upper Sorbian: nochcu, nochceš … nochcedźa (in colloquial speech replaced with present-tense forms of njechać).

^a Bulgarian šte and Macedonian ḱe are fossilized 3sg forms. Bulgarian šte is also part of the present-tense paradigm of štă (štă, šteš, šte, etc.).

9.2.3.2 Future II

BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian have a future II (future perfect). In Bulgarian, it is formed by adding šte (negated njáma da) to [săm/bắda ‘be’ + l-form].Footnote ²³ In BCMS, it involves the future be-auxiliary (Table 9.20) plus an l-form and is mainly used in adverbial clauses introduced by kȁd ‘when’ and ȁko ‘if’ (Reference Browne, Comrie and CorbettBrowne 1993: 331).Footnote ²⁴

9.3 Imperative

The Slavic imperative expresses directive speech acts (order/request/permission when affirmative; prohibition/warning when negated). Strictly speaking, an imperative proper cannot be used with communicative participants other than speaker and addressee and is therefore limited to the second person and the 1pl. If the speaker utters that they wish other persons to perform the action, the interpretation is rather optative or permissive, and the linguistic encoding is not by synthetic but by analytic forms.

9.3.1 Synthetic Imperatives

9.3.1.1 Second Singular

Present-day (especially South) Slavic languages use the suffix -i (< PSL *-ói) attached to the present stem, although there is a tendency to reduce it to zero.Footnote ²⁵ While the latter process is complete for present stems in -j-, -i is preserved when stress falls on the inflection or when the stem ends in a consonant cluster; see Table 9.22.

Table 9.22 2sg imperative

	‘take’	‘write’	‘praise’	‘know’
LCS	vъzьm-i	piš-i	xval-i	znaj-i
Bulgarian	vzem-í	piš-í	xval-í	znaj-Ø
Macedonian	zem-i	piš-i	fal-i	znaj-Ø
BCMS	ùzm-i	píš-i	hvál-i	znâj-Ø
Slovene	vzêm-i	píš-i	hvál-i	znàj-Ø
Slovak	vezm-i	piš-Ø	[chvaľ-Ø]	-znaj-Ø
Czech	vezm-i	piš-Ø	chval-Ø	znaj-Ø
Lower Sorbian	wez-Ø/wzej-Ø	piš-Ø	chwal-Ø	znaj-Ø
Upper Sorbian	wozm-i	piš-Ø	chwal-Ø	-znaj-Ø
Polish	weź-Ø/weźm-i	pisz-Ø	chwal-Ø	znaj-Ø
Belarusian	vaz‘m-í	piš-ý	xval-í	znaj-Ø
Russian	voz‘m-í	piš-í	xval-í	znaj-Ø
Ukrainian	viz‘m-ý	pyš-ý	xval-ý	znaj-Ø

9.3.1.2 Second Plural, First Dual, Second Dual

2pl, 1du, or 2du imperatives are formed by adding the respective marker from the present-tense paradigm to a 2sg imperative.Footnote ²⁶ Czech, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Ukrainian continue a PSL-based alternation which today reflects the number distinction: While -i is used in the 2sg (Table 9.22), -e- (-ě-) occurs in all plural forms (Ukrainian shows -y and -i-, respectively); see Tables 9.23–9.25.

Table 9.23 2pl imperative

	‘take’	‘write’	‘praise’	‘know’
Bulgarian	vzem-é-te	piš-é-te	xval-é-te	znáj-Ø-te
Macedonian	zem-e-te	piš-e-te	fal-e-te	znaj-Ø-te
BCMS	ùzm-i-te	píš-i-te	hvál-i-te	znâj-Ø-te
Slovene	vzem-í-te	píš-i-te	hvál-i-te	znâj-Ø-te
Slovak	vezm-i-te	piš-Ø-te	chvaľ-Ø-te	-znaj-Ø-te
Czech	vezm-ě-te	piš-Ø-te	chval-Ø-te	znaj-Ø-te
Lower Sorbian	wez-Ø-ćo	piš-Ø-ćo	chwal-Ø-ćo	znaj-Ø-ćo
Upper Sorbian	wozm-i-će	piš-Ø-će	chwal-Ø-će	-znaj-Ø-će
Polish	weź-Ø-cie	pisz-Ø-cie	chwal-Ø-cie	znaj-Ø-cie
Belarusian	vaz‘m-í-ce	piš-ý-ce	xval-í-ce	znáj-Ø-ce
Russian	voz‘m-í-te	piš-í-te	xval-í-te	znáj-Ø-te
Ukrainian	viz‘m-í-t‘	pyš-í-t‘	xval-í-t‘	znáj-Ø-te

Table 9.24 1du imperative

	‘take’	‘write’	‘praise’	‘know’
Slovene	vzem-í-va	píš-i-va	hvál-i-va	znâj-Ø-va
Lower Sorbian	wez-Ø-mej	piš-Ø-mej	chwal-Ø-mej	znaj-Ø-mej
Upper Sorbian	wozm-i-moj	piš-Ø-moj	chwal-Ø-moj	-znaj-Ø-moj

Table 9.25 2du imperative

	‘take’	‘write’	‘praise’	‘know’
Slovene	vzem-í-ta	píš-i-ta	hvál-i-ta	znâj-Ø-ta
Lower Sorbian	wez-Ø-tej	piš-Ø-tej	chwal-Ø-tej	znaj-Ø-tej
Upper Sorbian	wozm-i-taj/-tej	piš-Ø-taj/-tej	chwal-Ø-taj/-tej	-znaj-Ø-taj/-tej

9.3.1.3 First Plural

Synthetic 1pl imperatives (‘hortative’) exist in all languages except Belarusian, Russian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian. The present-tense 1pl marker is added to the singular/plural imperative stem. Languages without dedicated forms substitute them with present-tense forms; see Table 9.26 (substitutes in brackets).

Table 9.26 1pl imperative

	‘take’	‘write’	‘praise’	‘know’
Bulgarian	[vzémem]	[píšem]	[xválim]	[znáem]
Macedonian	[zememе]	[pišeme]	[falime]	[znaeme]
BCMS	ùzm-i-mo	píš-i-mo	hvál-i-mo	znâj-Ø-mo
Slovene	vzem-í-mo	píš-i-mo	hvál-i-mo	znâj-Ø-mo
Slovak	vezm-i-me	piš-Ø-me	chvaľ-Ø-me	-znaj-Ø-me
Czech	vezm-ě-me	piš-Ø-me	chval-Ø-me	znaj-Ø-me
Lower Sorbian	wez-Ø-my	piš-Ø-my	chwal-Ø-my	znaj-Ø-my
Upper Sorbian	wozm-i-my	piš-Ø-my	chwal-Ø-my	-znaj-Ø-my
Polish	weź-Ø-my	pisz-Ø-my	chwal-Ø-my	znaj-Ø-my
Belarusian	[vóz‘mem]	[píšam]	[xválim]	[znáem]
Russian	[voz‘mëm]	[píšem]	[xválim]	[znáem]
Ukrainian	viz‘m-í-mo	pyš-í-mo	xval-í-mo	znáj-Ø-mo

Russian 1pl forms in imperative function can be suffixed with 2pl -te when the speaker invites more than one person to perform the action together with them, or in case of a formal relationship to the addressee (Reference IsačenkoIsačenko 1962: 306–309).

9.3.1.4 Third Singular

Slavic languages do not have synthetic 3sg imperative forms, but some languages use 2sg imperatives instead, mostly in prayers and greeting formulae (Polish Święć_imp się imię Twoje ‘Hallowed be Thy name!’, BCMS Pomozi Bog ‘God help [us]!’; Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 358, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 364).

9.3.2 Analytic Imperatives

Analytic imperatives are typically used when there is no synthetic form but can also be full-fledged alternatives to them. They always involve a particle which combines with one of the following verb forms: present, future I, conditional I/II, infinitive, supine, da-construction. The particles are of verbal origin, mostly LCS nexaji ‘let’ or daj ‘give’. In some languages, they have plural variants (Bulgarian nedéjte; Russian davájte; BCMS nèmōjmo/-te). Tables 9.27–9.29 show illustrations (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 387–388, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 247, 363–366).Footnote ²⁷

Table 9.27 Analytic imperative: particle + indicative verb

		Particle	Indicative	Translation
Bulgarian		Da	píše_prs.3sg!	‘Let him write!’
		Néka	píše_prs.3sg!	‘Let him write!’
Macedonian		Neka	vika(at)_prs.3sg(pl)!	‘Let him (them) shout!’
		Da	kažeš!	‘Do say!’
BCMS	Svȉ	nek	plȁčū_prs.3pl!	‘Let them all cry!’
	No	da	sjȅdnēmo_prs.1pl!	‘Let us sit down!’
Slovene		Naj	míslita_prs.3du!	‘Let the two of them think!’
	Imé	naj	mu bo_fut.3sg Jánez!	‘May his name be Janez!’
Slovak		Nech	volá_prs.3sg!	‘Let her/him call!’
Czech		At‘	se tam pěkně chováš_prs.2sg!	‘Behave yourself well there!’
Lower Sorbian		Daś	jo_prs.3sg žywy serbski lud!	‘Long live the Sorbian people!’
Upper Sorbian		Njech	waritej_prs.3du!	‘Let the two of them cook!’
Polish		Niech	(prze)czytają_prs.3pl!	‘Let them read!’
Belarusian		Davájce	napíšam_prs.1pl!	‘Let us write!’
		Daváj	búdzem_fut.1pl pracavac‘!	‘Let us work!’
Russian		Púst‘	ón pridët_prs.3sg!	‘Let him come!’
		Daváj(te)	obsúdim_prs.1pl voprós!	‘Let us discuss the question!’
Ukrainian		(Ne)xáj	(ne) prýjde_prs.3sg!	‘Let him (not) come!’
		Xaj	ja pracjuvátymu_fut.1sg z vámy.	‘Let me work with you!’

Table 9.28 Analytic imperative: particle + conditional

	Particle	Conditional	Translation
Slovene	Naj	bi_cond.3sg (bíl) pádel!	‘Would he fall! / Would he had fallen!’

Table 9.29 Analytic imperative: particle + infinitive/supine/da-construction

	Particle	Infinitive/supine/da-construction	Translation
Bulgarian	Nedéj/te	se smé_inf!	‘Don’t laugh!’
	Nedéj	da glédame_prs.1pl!	‘Let us look!’
	Néka	da píšăt_prs.3pl!	‘Let them write!’
BCMS	Nèmōjmo	písati_inf!	‘Let’s not write!’
	Nèmōjte	písati_inf!	‘Don’t (PL) write!’
	Nèmōjte	da pîšēte_prs.2pl!	‘Don’t (PL) write!’
	Neka	da svȋrāmo!	‘Let us play!’
Slovene	Daj	že povédati_inf!	‘Let’s talk!’
	Daj	ga krónat_sup!	‘Let us crown him king!’
Belarusian	Davájce	vučýcca_inf!	‘Let us learn!’
Russian	Daváj(te)	pet‘_inf!	‘Let us sing!’
	Puskáj	veselját‘sja_prs.3pl mladšie!	‘Let the younger ones have fun!’

9.4 Conditional

All Slavic languages have a conditional I (present conditional), some a conditional II (past conditional). Bulgarian alone has a synthetic conditional. The conditional I expresses potentiality and is used in conditional clauses but also for polite requests, recommendations, and warnings. The conditional II encodes counterfactuality. It is frequently replaced by the conditional I. Moreover, BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian indicative forms often replace the conditional (imperfect for potentiality, pluperfect and future-in-the-past for counterfactuality).Footnote ²⁸ The conditional marker is either an inflected auxiliary or a particle; see Table 9.30 (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 297, Reference Xrakovskij and KempgenXrakovskij 2009: 276–277).

Table 9.30 Conditional markers

	Verb	Particle	Verbal paradigm
Late Common Slavic	●		sg	bimь, bi, bi // byxъ, by, by
			du	bivě, bista, biste // byxově, bysta, byste
			pl	bimъ/bixomъ, biste, bǫ/bišę // byxomъ, byste, byšę
Bulgarian	●		sg	bíx, bi, bi
			pl	bíxme, bíxte, bíxa
Macedonian		●		bi
BCMS^a	●	(●)	sg	bȉh, bȉ, bȉ
BCMS^a	●	(●)	pl	bȉsmo, bȉste, bȉ
Slovene		●		bi
Slovak		●	sg	by som, by si, by
			pl	by sme, by ste, by
Czech	●		sg	bych, bys, by
			pl	bychom, byste, by
Lower Sorbian		●		by
Upper Sorbian	●		sg	bych, by, by
			du	bychmoj, byštaj/-štej, byštaj/-štej
			pl	bychmy, byšće, bychu
Polish		●	sg	bym, byś, by
			pl	byśmy, byście, by
Belarusian^b		●		b(y)
Russian^b		●		b(y)
Ukrainian^b		●		b(y)

^a Standard BCMS has an inflecting auxiliary but many dialects use the particle bi (Reference PanzerPanzer 1967: 39, Reference Xrakovskij and KempgenXrakovskij 2009: 276), hence (●) in the table.

^b East Slavic languages have a full (by) and a reduced (b) variant. The two are in stylistic variation in Russian. In Belarusian and Ukrainian, by is used after consonants, b after vowels.

9.4.1 Conditional I

The conditional marker combines with an l-form of either aspect.

Some languages can use more than l-forms: East Slavic and Polish combine by with the infinitive (mostly in subjunctive clauses) and impersonal modals (like Polish trzeba, Russian nado ‘necessary’). Moreover, Polish has conditionals with no/to-forms (Reference MigdalskiMigdalski 2006: 253). East Slavic uses even more forms, among them nominals (Reference PanzerPanzer 1967: 21–22, Reference Xrakovskij and VolodinXrakovskij & Volodin 1986, Reference Xrakovskij and KempgenXrakovskij 2009: 276, Reference DobrušinaDobrušina 2016).

9.4.2 Conditional II

A conditional II exists in BCMS, Czech, Polish, Slovak, and Slovene (it is obsolete in Upper Sorbian and Ukrainian). It is formed with the conditional I of ‘be’ plus the l-form of the main verb; see (15).

(15)

a.	bȉ-l-a			bi-h			písa-l-a			(BCMS)
	be-l-sg.f			cond-1sg			write-l-sg.f
	‘I (f) would have written’
b.	by-l-a		by-x			uděla-l-a			(Czech)
	be-l-sg.f		cond-1sg			done-l-sg.f
	‘I (f) would have done’
c.	bo-l-a		by			som		vola-l-a		(Slovak)
	be-l-sg.f		cond			be.prs.1sg		call-l-sg.f
	‘I (f) would have called’
d.	bi	bí-l-a			po-hváli-l-a				(Slovene)
	cond	be-l-sg.f			pfv-praise-l-sg.f
	‘I (f) would have praised’

9.4.3 Synthetic Conditional

Only Bulgarian has, in its vernacular, synthetic conditional forms (Reference Hill and RehderHill 2009: 316). They involve the suffix -va- plus (i) present-tense inflections for potentiality (pís-va-m ‘I would write’) or (ii) imperfect-tense inflections for counterfactuality (pís-va-x ‘I would have written’; Reference Xrakovskij and KempgenXrakovskij 2009: 278).Footnote ²⁹

9.5 Evidential

Bulgarian and Macedonian are the only Slavic languages with forms to denote eventualities which the speaker cannot personally vouch for (Reference HaugeHauge 1999: 120–124). The most common description for them uses the opposition witnessed/reported. However, the more cautious opposition confirmative/non-confirmative seems advantageous, as ‘non-confirmative’ subsumes the instances of report, conclusion, and disbelief. It is an open question if evidential forms fit into the indicative (e.g. Reference Levin-SteinmannLevin-Steinmann 2004) or constitute one or multiple mood/s. Grammars reflect the latter view in the form of moods called ‘renarrative’, ‘conclusive’, ‘dubitative’, and ‘(ad)mirative’. By contrast, the relevant forms are nowadays viewed in linguistics as reflecting a distinct category, evidentiality.

Bulgarian and Macedonian evidential forms include both variants of l-forms (Section 9.2.3.2). While Macedonian third person forms generally lack an auxiliary, Bulgarian grammars disagree when it comes to decide whether (and which) third person evidential forms include an auxiliary. The established view is that the auxiliary is dropped in third person ‘renarrative’ forms which then serves to distinguish them from the indicative perfect (cf. Table 9.31 with Table 9.32).

Table 9.31 1sg indicative and renarrative forms

	Bulgarian		Macedonian
	Indicative	Renarrative	Indicative	Renarrative
Present	píšă	píšela săm	pišam	sum pišela
Aorist	písax	písala săm	napisav	sum napišela
Perfect	písala săm	bíla săm písala	sum pišela, imam pišeno	sum imala napišаno
Future	šte píšă	štjála săm da píšă	ḱe pišam	ḱe sum pišela

(Scatton 1984: 214)

Table 9.32 3sg indicative and renarrative forms

	Bulgarian		Macedonian
	Indicative	Renarrative	Indicative	Renarrative
Present	píše	píšela Ø	piše	Ø pišela
Aorist	písa	písala Ø	napisaše	Ø napišela
Perfect	písala e	bíla Ø písala	Ø pišela, ima pišeno	Ø imala napišаno
Future	šte píše	štjála Ø da píše	ḱe piše	ḱe sum pišela

Bulgarian renarrative forms can be emphasized by putting the auxiliary itself in the evidential: Tój bíl píšel román ‘(I heard:) He writes a novel’. Such forms usually encode doubt on the part of the speaker (hence ‘dubitative’). Another evidential subtype is called ‘conclusive’. It uses overt third-person auxiliaries: Tój e píšel pismóto ‘He [presumably] wrote the letter’ (Reference ScattonScatton 1984: 215).

Temporal oppositions (present/past, future/future-in-the-past, future-in-the-past/future II-in-the-past) are neutralized in evidential forms, so that each evidential (except for the aorist) corresponds to two indicative tenses.

9.6 Outlook

Tense and mood present a vast area for linguistic research on any language or language group. Several specific topics related to the peculiarities of the Slavic verb come to mind that deserve the (continuous) attention of linguists. Among them is the cross-Slavic as well as intralinguistic variation of tense and mood forms; the tense/aspect/mood (TAM) architecture with a focus on the interactions of, and interfaces between, semantics, morphosyntax, and pragmatics; the theoretical status of verbal roots, the aspectual function of affixes and stems, the role and possible semantic or grammatical contribution of thematic markers, the locus of interpretation of inflectional features, etc.

Although a lot of work has already been done, the morphosyntax, use, and interpretation of auxiliary omission in South Slavic l-periphrases are far from clear. These issues point to the broader question of whether the relevant languages really possess one or more evidential mood(s). At the same time, they open a cross-Slavic, comparative perspective on topics related to grammaticalization, such as the development and change of (the use of) auxiliaries or the finite/non-finite status of specific verb forms.

Another area of increasing interest is the impact of language contact for historical and contemporary changes in the system(s) of Slavic tense and mood forms.

Even more fundamentally, there is still no widely accepted answer to the question of how many world- and speaker-related categories (modality, evidentiality, mood, reality status, etc.) there are in individual Slavic languages, and what their hierarchical relation to each other is. Not least from an interdisciplinary perspective do discourse and perspectivation properties of mood and tense forms in Slavic languages deserve further attention.

Footnotes

¹ This chapter addresses Belarusian, Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian (BCMS), Bulgarian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Sorbian (Lower and Upper), and Ukrainian. Older stages – Proto-Indo-European (PIE), Proto-Slavic (PSL), Late Common Slavic (LCS), Old Church Slavic (OCS) – are occasionally adduced to shed light on historical developments.

² Viewpoint aspect is only mentioned as far as tense distinctions are concerned (for more details, see Chapter 10). Moreover, this chapter portrays only active-voice forms (see Chapter 21 on the passive).

³ Czech grammars still mention a supine, the only verb with a distinctive form being spat ‘sleep.sup’.

⁴ The citation form in Bulgarian is the 1sg, in Macedonian the 3sg (only for sum ‘be’ is it the 1sg). Bulgarian has a ‘vestigial infinitive’ formally identical to the 2/3sg.aor. It occurs rarely and only optionally in the written language (Reference ScattonScatton 1984: 230).

⁵ Glossing follows the Leipzig Glossing Rules (www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php).

⁶ This and the fact that perfective present-tense forms denote future eventualities in East and West Slavic (Section 9.2.3) makes it seem more adequate to use the term ‘non-past’. The present description will nonetheless use the traditional terminology.

⁷ The tables give only -tъ for LCS 3sg/pl, omitting palatal -tь. The latter is reflected in part in East Slavic (e.g. Russian est‘ ‘s/he is’, sut’ ‘they are’).

⁸ They are rarely used in BCMS and Sorbian where spoken language replaces them with the perfect, then used as a global past (Section 9.2.2.2).

⁹ Perfective imperfects occur in temporal and conditional clauses where their interpretation is habitual (see Reference Rivero, Arregui, Slavkov, Fernández-Soriano, Castroviejo Miró and Pérez-JiménezRivero et al. 2017).

¹⁰ Both are best characterized as aspectual since they encode the speaker’s view on the situation: while perfective/imperfective are about its internal boundaries, aorist/imperfect concern external boundaries.

¹¹ An alternative segmentation separates -x-/-h-/-v- (palatalized -š-, sometimes Ø) as a past-tense suffix followed by an agreement marker, hence Bulgarian -x-me ‘pst-1pl’. See details in Chapter 8.

¹² Bulgarian forms are optionally distinguished by a stress shift from root to theme in the aorist.

¹³ The perfect is really an aspect–tense combination. Grammars mostly classify it as a past tense.

¹⁴ sg and du (Slovene) examples illustrate genders as follows: first person = m, second person = f, third person = n. Upper Sorbian du forms are masculine-personal in the second person and non-masculine-personal in the third person. Where available, pl examples illustrate masculine-personal in the first person, non-masculine-personal in the second person, and n in the third person.

¹⁵ The participle may also agree with the direct object as in (6) (Reference CvrčekCvrček et al. 2010: 241).

¹⁶ The subdivision in Table 9.16 mirrors the presence/absence of present-tense auxiliary forms.

¹⁷ An archaic alternative is njámaše + da + present tense (Reference ScattonScatton 1984: 327).

¹⁸ Only unique non-negated situations are interpreted such that their completion is in the future (the preparatory activity may have started already). Non-unique situations give rise to a repeated, habitual, or generic interpretation. In appropriate contexts, the future I can be interpreted as a future perfect.

¹⁹ The m-marker is syntactically mobile in South-Western dialects (mu xodýty ‘I shall go’; Reference Žovtobrjux, Moldovan and MoldovanŽovtobrjux & Moldovan 2005: 544). Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley (2006: 288) note that Belarusian, too, has an m-future which is now marginal and archaic.

²⁰ The Slovene auxiliary is enclitic. The two variants in Polish are functionally equivalent. Slovak uses also íst‘ ‘go’ to form a ‘close future’ (idem sa ženit‘ ‘I am going to get married’; Reference Short, Comrie and CorbettShort 1993b: 554).

²¹ Infinitives in -ći like dóći ‘come’ always keep the marker: dóći ću ‘I shall come’. Especially Bosnian and Serbian dialects often use da plus present tense in place of the infinitive (see Reference Browne, Comrie and CorbettBrowne 1993: 330).

²² The negations njáma da/nema da have in fact the (usually modal) affirmative counterpart íma da (Reference Friedman, Comrie and CorbettFriedman 1993: 271).

²³ Macedonian ḱe + sum + l-form is a reported future I: [Majka mi reče deka] Vie ḱe ste patuvale so avtomobil ‘[My mother says that] You will be travelling by car’ (Reference Rehder and RehderRehder 2009: 340).

²⁴ Only the perfective future II is a future perfect. Otherwise, it is a simple future. Its raison d‘être is to yield a future interpretation in embedded clauses which imperfective present forms fail to express.

²⁵ The shift from -i to -Ø is traceable in the form of palatalized consonants before -Ø (Czech promiň-Ø ‘forgive!’, Russian vstan‘-Ø ‘stand up!’).

²⁶ Ukrainian imp.2pl imperatives show -te with verbs that have -Ø in the 2sg. Otherwise, 2pl imperatives end in -it‘.

²⁷ BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian da is treated as a particle proper if it stands alone but as a connector if it links a particle to the verb.

²⁸ In Bulgarian and Macedonian, the future-in-the-past adds increased certainty on the part of the speaker as to the realizability of the situation, while the conditional presupposes a probability of maximally 50 percent (Reference NicolovaNicolova 2017: 551–552).

²⁹ Reference Hill and RehderHill (2009: 316) dubs these forms ‘present future’ and ‘present future-in-the-past’, respectively.

References

Andersen, H. (2006). Periphrastic futures in Slavic: Divergence and convergence. In Eksell, K. & Vinther, T., eds., Change in Verbal Systems: Issues in Explanation, Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 9–45.Google Scholar

Anstatt, T., Clasmeier, C., & Wölke, S. (2020). Obersorbisch: Aus der Perspektive der slavischen Interkomprehension, Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar

Aronson, H. (1968). Bulgarian Inflectional Morphophonology, The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Bondaruk, A. & Rozwadowska, B. (2019). Polish object experiencer verbs in the stative and eventive passive. In Bondaruk, A. & Jaskuła, K., eds., All Around the Word. Papers in Honour of Bogdan Szymanek on his 65th Birthday, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, pp. 47–78.Google Scholar

Browne, W. (1993). Serbo-Croat. In Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 306–387.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G., eds. (1993). The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cvrček, V. et al. (2010). Mluvnice současné češtiny 1: Jak se píše a mluví, Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar

Dalewska-Greń, H. (1997). Języki słowiańskie, Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar

Desclés, J.-P. & Guenchéva, Z. (1990). Discourse analysis of aorist and imperfect in Bulgarian and French. In Thelin, N. B, ed., Verbal Aspect in Discourse, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 237–261.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dobrušina, N. R. (2016). Soslagatel‘noe naklonenie v russkom jazyke. Opyt issledovanija grammatičeskoj semantiki, Prague: Animedia.Google Scholar

Embick, D. (1995). Mobile inflections in Polish. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 25(2), 127–142.Google Scholar

Fasske, H. (1981). Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart: Morphologie, Bautzen: VEB Domowina-Verlag.Google Scholar

Fiedler, W. (1999). Tempus, Modus und Aspekt in den Sprachen Südosteuropas. In Hinrichs, U. & Büttner, U., eds., Handbuch der Südosteuropalinguistik, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 487–517.Google Scholar

Franks, S. & Bański, P. (1999). Approaches to ‘schizophrenic’ Polish person agreement. In Dziwirek, K., Coats, H., & Vakareliyska, C., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7. The Seattle Meeting, 1998, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 123–143.Google Scholar

Friedman, V. A. (1986). Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Chafe, W. L. & Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Norwood, NY: Ablex, 168–187.Google Scholar

Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 249–305.Google Scholar

Friedman, V. A. (2004). The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics. In Tomić, O. M., ed., Balkan Syntax and Semantics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 101–134.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gabka, K. et al. (1988). Russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Bd. 2: Morphologie, Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar

Giger, M. (2009). Der Resultativ in den slavischen Sprachen. In Kempgen, S. et al., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 269–274.Google Scholar

Gołąb, Z. (1964). The problem of verbal moods in Slavic languages. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 8(1), 1–36.Google Scholar

Halle, M. (1951). The Old Church Slavonic conjugation. Word, 7, 155–167.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hauge, K. R. (1999). A Short Grammar of Contemporary Bulgarian, Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar

Hill, P. (2009). Das Bulgarische. In Rehder, P., ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG, pp. 310–325.Google Scholar

Isačenko, A. V. (1962). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart I: Formenlehre, Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. (1948). Russian conjugation. Word, 4, 155–167.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kempgen, S., Kosta, P., Gutschmidt, K., & Berger, T., eds. (2009). The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lehmann, V. (2013). Linguistik des Russischen: Grundlagen der formal-funktionalen Beschreibung, Munich: Otto Sagner.CrossRef Google Scholar

Levin-Steinmann, A. (2004). Die Legende vom bulgarischen Renarrativ: Bedeutung und Funktion der kopulalosen l-Periphrase, Munich: Otto Sagner.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lindstedt, J. (1994). On the development of the South Slavonic perfect. Three papers on the perfect. EUROTYP Working Papers, 6(5), 32–53.Google Scholar

Lindstedt, J. (2010). Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian. In Rothstein, B. & Thieroff, R., eds., Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 409–421.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lunt, H. G. (1952). A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje: Državno Knigoizdatelstvo na NR Makedonija.Google Scholar

Mayo, P. (1993). Belorussian. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 887–946.Google Scholar

Mehlig, H. R. (1999). Die grammatischen Kategorien des Verbs unter funktionalen Gesichtspunkten. In Jachnow, H., ed., Handbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Russistik und ihrer Grenzdisziplinen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 182–272.Google Scholar

Migdalski, K. (2006). The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic, Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Moldovan, A. M. et al., eds. (2005). Jazyki mira: Slavjanskie jazyki, Moscow: Academia.Google Scholar

Nicolova, R. (2017). Bulgarian Grammar, Berlin: Frank und Timme.Google Scholar

Panzer, B. (1967) Der slavische Konditional: Form – Gebrauch – Funktion, Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar

Panzer, B. (1999). Die slavischen Sprachen in Gegenwart und Geschichte: Sprachstrukturen und Verwandtschaft, 3rd. ed., Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Petruxin, P. V. & Sičinava, D. V. (2006). Russkij pljuskvamperfekt v tipologičeskoj perspective. In Moldovan, A. M. et al., eds., Verenica liter: K 60-letiju V. M. Živova, Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul‘tury, pp. 193–214.Google Scholar

Priestly, T. M. S. (1993). Slovene. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 388–451.Google Scholar

Rehder, P. (2009). Das Makedonische. In Rehder, P., ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG, pp. 331–346.Google Scholar

Rehder, P., ed. (2009). Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG.Google Scholar

Rivero, M. L. & Simeonova, V. (2015). The inferential future in Bulgarian: An evidential modal proposal. In Szajbel-Keck, M., Burns, R., & Kavitskaya, D., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23: The First Berkeley Meeting, 2014, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 282–301.Google Scholar

Rivero, M. L., Arregui, A., & Slavkov, N. (2017). The grammaticalization of ‘big’ situations: The IMPF operator and perfective imperfects in Bulgarian. In Fernández-Soriano, O., Castroviejo Miró, E, & Pérez-Jiménez, I, eds., Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case Studies in Honor of Violeta Demonte, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 152–172.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rothstein, R. A. (1993). Polish. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 686–758.Google Scholar

Rothstein, B. & Thieroff, R., eds. (2010). Mood in the Languages of Europe, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Scatton, E. A. (1984). A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian, Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar

Šewc, H. (1968). Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rěče, 1: Fonematika a morfologija, Bautzen: Domowina.Google Scholar

Shevelov, G. Y. (1993). Ukrainian. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 947–998.Google Scholar

Short, D. (1993a). Czech. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 455–532.Google Scholar

Short, D. (1993b). Slovak. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 533–592.Google Scholar

Sičinava, D. V. (2013). Tipologija pljuskvamperfekta. Slavjanskij pljuskvamperfekt, Moscow: AST Press.Google Scholar

Sonnenhauser, B. (2006). Aspekt und Aorist/Imperfekt im Bulgarischen – eine intervall-basierte Analyse. Die Welt der Slaven, 51, 116–140.Google Scholar

Sonnenhauser, B. (2013). ‘Evidentiality’ and point of view in Bulgarian. Săpostavitelno ezikoznanie, 38(2–3), 110–130.Google Scholar

Stieber, Z. (1973). Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. II: Fleksja werbalna, Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar

Stone, G. (1993). Sorbian (upper and lower). In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 593–685.Google Scholar

Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Thomason, R. H. (1984). Combinations of tense and modality. In Gabbay, D. M. & Guenthner, F., eds., Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 135–165.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tomić, O. M. (1999). Negation and imperatives. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 191–206.Google Scholar

Tomić, O. M. (2008). Mood and negation in Balkan Slavic. In Zybatow, G. et al., eds., Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference, Leipzig 2003, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 461–477.Google Scholar

Townsend, C. E. (1975). Russian Word Formation, Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar

Townsend, C. E. & Janda, L. A. (1996). Common and Comparative Slavic: Phonology and Inflection, Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar

Xrakovskij, V. S. (2009). The conditional. In Kempgen, S. et al., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 484–505.Google Scholar

Xrakovskij, V. S. & Volodin, A. P. (1986). Semantika i tipologija imperativa: Russkij imperative, Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar

Žovtobrjux, M. A. & Moldovan, A. M. (2005). Ukrainskij jazyk. In Moldovan, A. M. et al., eds., Jazyki mira: Slavjanskie jazyki, Moscow: Academia, pp. 513–548.Google Scholar

Table 9.1 Inventory of tense and mood forms

Table 9.2 Conjugational classes

Table 9.3 Present tense -e-class

Table 9.4 Present tense -i-class

Table 9.5 Present tense -a-class (South and West Slavic) and -j-class (Lower Sorbian)

Table 9.6 Present tense ‘be’

(Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 307; extended)

Table 9.7 Present tense ‘have’

(Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 307)

Table 9.8 Present-tense inflections

Table 9.9 Aorist and imperfect inflections

Table 9.10 Aorist and imperfect forms

Table 9.11 Imperfect ‘be’

Table 9.12 Imperfect štă ‘want’ (Bulgarian)

Table 9.13 Periphrastic perfect/global past forms in Slavic languages

Table 9.14 Synthetic global past-tense forms in East Slavic

Table 9.15 Periphrastic pluperfect with imperfect-tense auxiliaries

Table 9.16 Periphrastic pluperfect with global-past auxiliaries

Table 9.17 Future-in-the past in Bulgarian and Macedonian

Table 9.18 Future II-in-the past (Bulgarian)

Table 9.19 Inventory of future tense forms

Table 9.20 Slavic future auxiliaries based on LCS byti ‘be’

Table 9.21 Future auxiliaries based on LCS xotěti/xъtěti ‘want’

Table 9.22 2sg imperative

Table 9.23 2pl imperative

Table 9.24 1du imperative

Table 9.25 2du imperative

Table 9.26 1pl imperative

Table 9.27 Analytic imperative: particle + indicative verb

Table 9.28 Analytic imperative: particle + conditional

Table 9.29 Analytic imperative: particle + infinitive/supine/da-construction

Table 9.30 Conditional markers

Table 9.31 1sg indicative and renarrative forms

(Scatton 1984: 214)

Table 9.32 3sg indicative and renarrative forms

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

On	właśnie	teraz	rozwiązuje	zadanie.	(Polish)
he	just	now	solve.prs.3sg	task
‘He is solving the task right now.’

On	codziennie	rozwiązuje	zadania.
he	daily	solve.prs.3sg	tasks
‘He solves problems every day.’

Členot		se	ima	razvie-n-o	(Macedonian)
article.def		refl	have.prs.3sg	develop-ptcp-def
od	pokazni		zamenki.
from	demonstrative		pronouns
‘The article has developed from demonstrative pronouns.’

a.	Bude-m		prosi-t‘.		(Slovak)
	be;fut-1sg		ask.ipfv-inf
	‘I shall be asking.’
b.	Vin	bude		prosy-ty.		(Ukrainian)
	he	be;fut.3sg		ask.ipfv-inf
	‘He shall be asking.’

a.	Będzie-cie	prosi-l-i.		(Polish)
	be;fut-2pl	ask.ipfv-l-pl.mps
	‘You shall be asking.’
b.	Prosí-l-a		bo-m.	(Slovene)
	ask.ipfv-l-sg.f		be;fut-1sg
	‘I shall be asking.’

Po-hváli-l-Ø	bom.	(Slovene)
pfv-praise-l-sg.m	be;fut-1sg
‘I shall praise.’

Ja	bud-u	na-pisa-ś.	(Lower Sorbian)
I	be;fut-1sg	pfv-write-inf
‘I shall write.’

Slâvko	će	(na-)písa-ti	písmo.	(BCMS)
S.	want.fut.3sg	pfv-write-inf	M.acc
‘Slavko shall be writing (write) a letter.’

a.	Vȉd(j)e=ć-u	Màriju.	(Bosnian/Serbian)
	see[.inf]=want.fut-1sg	M.acc
	‘I shall see Marija.’
b.	Vȉdje-t ć-u	Màriju.	(Croatian)
	see-inf want.fut-1sg	M.acc
	‘I shall see Marija.’

a.	šte	(pro-)čet-á		(Bulgarian)
	want.fut	pfv-read-1sg
	‘I shall be writing’
b.	ḱe		(pro-)čita-m		(Macedonian)
	want.fut		prv-read-1sg
	‘I shall be writing’

Book contents

9 - Tense and Mood Forms

Summary

Keywords

Information

9.1 Overview

Table 9.1 Inventory of tense and mood forms

9.2 Indicative

9.2.1 Present

Table 9.2 Conjugational classes

Table 9.3 Present tense -e-class

Table 9.4 Present tense -i-class

Table 9.5 Present tense -a-class (South and West Slavic) and -j-class (Lower Sorbian)

Table 9.6 Present tense ‘be’

Table 9.7 Present tense ‘have’

Table 9.8 Present-tense inflections

9.2.2 Past

9.2.2.1 Aorist and Imperfect

Table 9.9 Aorist and imperfect inflections

Table 9.10 Aorist and imperfect forms

Table 9.11 Imperfect ‘be’

Table 9.12 Imperfect štă ‘want’ (Bulgarian)

9.2.2.2 Periphrastic Perfect/Global Past

Table 9.13 Periphrastic perfect/global past forms in Slavic languages

9.2.2.3 Synthetic Global Past

Table 9.14 Synthetic global past-tense forms in East Slavic

9.2.2.4 N/T-Perfect

9.2.2.5 Pluperfect

Table 9.15 Periphrastic pluperfect with imperfect-tense auxiliaries

Table 9.16 Periphrastic pluperfect with global-past auxiliaries

9.2.2.6 n/t-Pluperfect

9.2.2.7 Future-In-The-Past

Table 9.17 Future-in-the past in Bulgarian and Macedonian

9.2.2.8 Future II-in-the-Past

Table 9.18 Future II-in-the past (Bulgarian)

9.2.3 Future

9.2.3.1 Future I

Synthetic Future Forms

Periphrastic Future Forms

Table 9.19 Inventory of future tense forms

Table 9.20 Slavic future auxiliaries based on LCS byti ‘be’

Table 9.21 Future auxiliaries based on LCS xotěti/xъtěti ‘want’

9.2.3.2 Future II

9.3 Imperative

9.3.1 Synthetic Imperatives

9.3.1.1 Second Singular

Table 9.22 2sg imperative

9.3.1.2 Second Plural, First Dual, Second Dual

Table 9.23 2pl imperative

Table 9.24 1du imperative

Table 9.25 2du imperative

9.3.1.3 First Plural

Table 9.26 1pl imperative

9.3.1.4 Third Singular

9.3.2 Analytic Imperatives

Table 9.27 Analytic imperative: particle + indicative verb

Table 9.28 Analytic imperative: particle + conditional

Table 9.29 Analytic imperative: particle + infinitive/supine/da-construction

9.4 Conditional

Table 9.30 Conditional markers

9.4.1 Conditional I

9.4.2 Conditional II

9.4.3 Synthetic Conditional

9.5 Evidential

Table 9.31 1sg indicative and renarrative forms

Table 9.32 3sg indicative and renarrative forms

9.6 Outlook

Footnotes

References

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive