Expressing the Future in Russian with Perfective Verbs

In this video we'll cover how to say something will happen when you know (or assume!) it'll be completed: the future of perfective verbs.
In a way it's incredibly easy... as long as you get used to making one little mental shift.
Expressing the future with perfectives is a little different from imperfectives, and from the future of "to be," so you may want to review these videos as well:
Future of imperfective verbs:
• The Future Tense in Ru...
Future of быть ("to be"):
• Russian Verbs - The Fu...
For more on verbal aspect, see this playlist:
• Verbal Aspect
Buy me a coffee?
☕️ www.buymeacoffee.com/russiang...

[@ArtWade]

You're a fantastic teacher and I appreciate your ability to explain complex topics in a way that's easy to digest and use.

[@spacer0cket783]

Очень полезный. Большое спасибо.

[@breadpitt4920]

великалепно!

[@Alex-xp9tk]

Спасибо за этот видео 🙏 пусть бог вас благословит

[@brk5590]

excellent explination

[@darren970906]

Can you make more videos on Russian grammar please.

[@NoahSteckley]

I vote for the trashing of the “pair” model, instead suggesting to think of verbs as Trees. Across the near entirety of Russian verbs: Prefixes perfectivize, suffixes imperfectivize. It is because people mostly mainly see the Branch verbs (those with a prefix added onto a Root verb), that they come to believe -ать imperfective and -ить perfective-they much more seldom encounter the Root verbs, which are mostly -ить imperfectives. Говорить > проговорить > проговаривать Root imp > prefix perfective > suffix imperfective

[@russiangrammar]

There are certainly other ways of looking at aspect (linguist Laura Janda writes of aspectual clusters); keep in mind this video is aimed at beginners. It's worth introducing secondary imperfectives (imperf. читать > perf. дочитать > imperf. дочитывать) at some point, but in my experience that's best done at the intermediate level, if not later. What's linguistically interesting may not be pedagogically appropriate at every level. :)

[@NoahSteckley]

@@russiangrammar I take your point! Janda’s work was part of what inspired me to reorganize this. I do feel though that the pair model set me up for confusion for a long time, trying to break from intermediate-advanced to fluent in reading. I kept thinking there were wayy wayy more verbs than there actually are. Not to mention the entire ordeal of identifying aspect (or producing aspectual pairs in speech)… Totally out of place in a beginner discussion yes, but *which* simplified starting kit we teach determines what we can build on later. The similarities to phrasal verbs (like homologous structures in biology) can be leveraged to great success. Done well, introducing new learners to a group model would increase complexity in the short term mildly, and decrease complexity in the long term wildly, making Russian far far more like an “easy” romance language, than like the scourge of terror it is generally seen as. I don’t know about the universities you’ve seen, but seems to me like Russian language learning needs a serious PR revamp. “There’s two Russian verbs for every English” (a pair model thing to say) works into thaaaaaat *holds the pie close to nose, pulling you to the dark side* What would the simple beginner video look like? I don’t know, probably introducing some of those delightful simple two syllable -ить root verbs and demonstrating them as usable essentially sort of basically like English phrasal verbs. The prefixes can be used as a different (better, more accurate???) way of explaining the perfectivity meaning: the meaning of the prefix specifies an Endpoint (or “criterion for completion”)-that’s ***why*** perfectivity comes about by adding the prefix. I’m tellin ya, yes, it’s more complicated to explain for a class or two, but once you get that off the ground it collapses like 70% of the verb population, and radically truncates the work. The merit of this is most obvious when looking at real literature texts. It’s the same like 20 verbs, with every which sort of prefix slapped on. The pair model can make a learner think these are new things to look up every time. Or when a learner encounters a less common verb, карабкаться, they will be misled into not realizing they’ve learned many different usages like выкарабкиваться (and that’s a motion-like verb where everyone sees these things). “Placement verbs” (for lack of a better term) are another swath of verbs where the benefit of front loading prefix-trees is evident (since everyone agrees on the motion verbs, but teaches them on the latter end, and quarantines much of the prefix discussion to them). These verbs don’t refer to movement (unless, often, with -ся) but things like кидать, класть (*ложить), ставить, бить, швырять, бросать, or the allstar: валить. A learner not trained from the get-go that взваливать is exactly what it looks like, воз- + валить + ивать, means pretty much exactly what that plus context gives you, that the perfective for a -ивать would be -ить not the addition of по-, or how to derive a solid guess for unfamiliar vocab свалить having only ever learned разваливать or something-that learner has been given an out of date map which will slow them down! And their experience of, and capability with, the language will reflect it. For instance, as yet another small example, sound verbs (as well as many other verbs) offer the inevitable conclusion of there being more than one canonical perfective, coming with за-, по-, и про- forms consistently. How is the pair-model learner, in a world believing по- makes perfectives but other prefixes are simply other verbs (kind of sometimes!?) to reconcile with the peculiar majesty of words позвякивая. «Ведь по- makes perfectives, why is it imperfective, and what the heck does that mean, and why not just say звякая??” It’s questions like that, which are answerable *well* in other models, that accumulate to cause the dropout over long-term of students! (Short term drop-out, I am, probably, radically increasing with all this) Ah well, I will argue for my position indefinitely and without regard for opposition, merely because I find it more interesting, which is indeterminately impractical, out-of-touch, and basically unlikely to help anyone.

[@NoahSteckley]

To be clear, I would define the category of placement verbs as “Non motion verbs, for which prefixes take first and foremost the most physical of meanings, making them the next logical topic after motion verbs, and transitioning learners towards the realm of verbs for which prefixes take on derived, secondary, metaphorical meanings.” Also “за” means “over” not “behind.” (This makes many things constellate which are insoluble before.)

[@russiangrammar]

I used to teach a Structure of Russian course for 2nd/3rd-year students specifically to cover things that don't quite fit in basic courses. Were you ever taught in a language course about secondary imperfectives? I can't remember that I was, and wonder if covering that specifically would reduce some of the confusion - but I would hesitate to burden beginners (who are still grappling with case endings & писать vs написать) with it. If you don't already have it, you must get J. Forsyth's "A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb" (Cambridge University Press) - 350+ pages of examples and thought-provoking analysis; chapter 3 is on aspectual pairs, including criticism and defense of that model. On a side note, are you familiar with the single-stem system, and the controversy among teachers of Russian as to whether it'd be better than the traditional system? You could look for articles by Robert Channon and Gerald Mayer in SEEJ if you're interested - another good example of the question of the sometimes fraught place of linguistics in language teaching. You write: "...because I find it more interesting, which is indeterminately impractical..." - well, sometimes impractical and interesting go together nicely. :)

[@mehdi4978]

Thank you so much for the useful content on Russian grammar. Would you also please share with me a link on causatives in Russian. For example, I got my hair cut. She made me do as she pleased. And so on.

[@russiangrammar]

I don't know that Russian has a specific form for causatives (like I vaguely understand in Turkish 'susmak' - to be quiet), 'susturmak' - to make someone quiet). Your examples could be expressed in different ways: меня постригли "I got a haircut/had my hair cut", мама заставила меня лечь "mom made me lie down." Perhaps the most general way is to use заставлять/заставить with an infinitive. ))

[@mehdi4978]

@@russiangrammar thx for your information

[@huan1921]

Can you please make a clear understanding how to use nobody-nothing to every case?. I don't find anybody talking about this very usual practice. Thank you

[@russiangrammar]

Thank you for the suggestion, I'll put it on the list. :)

[@russiangrammar]

Вот новый ролик: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGilZ3V7pt14pqc