This one is a bit of an enigma to me. Building on the verb 'hnout'...to move.. lehnout si....for example lehnu si...I will lie down lehl jsem si....I laid down Present tense(I am in the process of lying down( Ležím si? The aspectual pair is ležet si...lehnout si? Motýl dolehl v mé polevku. The fly landed(alit) in my soup. Doleži do mé polevky...He is aliting(landing) in my soup? Is 'si' necessary with all the variants? Armáda si oblehla město. Obleže si zrovna ted' chudé město?
Lehám si (I'm just changing my position to horizontal ;-)) or Ležím (I'm already resting in horizontal position) Well, we would say something like "Do polévky mi spadla moucha" or "V polévce mi přistála moucha". No. Armáda oblehla město/Armáda obléhala město. Oblehne teď chudé město?
The verbs “hnout” and “lehnout” are not cognate. The similarity is just a coincidence. Both “h” and “n” in “hnout” are within the word root, but the “h” in “lehnout” is in the root and the “n” is a part of the suffix “-nout”. The coincidence is the root ends in “h”. The problem of aspects of verbs with the suffix (suffix, not a coincidental ending containing a part of the root!) “-nout” is quite simple. This suffix is used to create a perfective verb from an imperfective verb with suffix “-at” (not all such verbs could be perfectivized this way). That means you just have to replace the suffix “-nout” with the suffix “-at” to find the imperfective counterpart. (Well, sometimes there could be a minor change in the word root like shortening of a vowel, but you can possibly consult a dictionary.) lehnout lehat padnout padat hrknout hrkat Scrimshaw, you mixed up verbs of similar but different meanings. ležet = lie ~ be in lying position lehat/lehnout (si) = lie down ~ come into lying position
I see :idea: . Thanks. That helps alot. leh + nout ......not le + hnout I definitely want to remember this. That clears a bit of my confusion. lehat si..lehnout si sedat si...sednout si similarly...vhýbat..vyhybnout Vyhýbnu se mu zítra. Ještě nemám peníze, ktreré ho dlužím. Dnes se mu vyhýbáme. Velká armáda zrovna ted' oblehá chudou vesnice. Král leže na kopce pod deštníkem a směje se. Moucha (ne motýl) mi spadla do polevky a ted' plavá s jejími prátely. Vtíp...trochu starý a banalní. Muž se servírce zeptal. ''Slečno, co dělá tahle moucha v mé polevce?''. ''Myslím si, že dělá zpětný zdvih.''
OK, once again: “not all such verbs could be perfectivized this way”. Or simply: -nout → -at works practically always -at → -nout works only sometimes (but should be always understandable) That’s because the imperfective “-at” form could be perfectivized in more ways. You can add some prefix with a special meaning or, if the “-at” form is derived from a perfective form, you can go back to the original form, for example. And sometimes, it works with prefixed forms, but not with the unprefixed one. And btw, the “-nout” verbs alway denotes one single finished action.
Ooops, you're right. Vyhýbat se..vyhnout se If I could try to get into the roots of words further. In this case they ARE variants derived from the verb to move 'hýbat...hnout=, right? Using a prefix. Vyhnu se mu zítra. Vynul jsem mu včera. Vyhýbám se mu dnes. Zapomenul jsem něco. Mám pocit, že zapomínám něco. Vrhnu rychle po tak dlouhém dne.
Forget that last line. I meant 'Vadnu rychle po tak dlouhém dne.' Learning new verbs, and my mind is working so well this late at night.
OK, I exaggerated it a little , but: tonout, hrnout not suffix “-nout”, the “n” is a part of the root vadnout a change of state, the “n” originated in an adjectival suffix “Vládnout” is a strange verb, it also originated as verb of change of state (harmonize), i.e. the “n” is also adjectival. I wonder why the verb “vládat” derived in the regular way is not used (like in Polish). So, Wicker’s counterexamples were not the best ones, but he is right. The verbs with the suffix “-nout” (or more general ending in “-out”) denote a single action, but they needn’t be perfective. A perfect example is the pair “tahat/táhnout”, “táhnout” is a single action, but both “tahat” and “táhnout” is imperfective. Also a reflexive of a perfective verb could be sometimes imperfective. Sorry scrimschaw for mystifying you, but you still can use it as a rule of thumb - a verb with the verbal suffix “-nout” is most likely in a pair with a verb with verbal suffix “-at”.
I disagree. The correct decomposition for the 2nd class infinitives is always root-nou-ti to-nou-ti (< from the original root top-) hr-nou-ti (< grt-) tr-nou-ti (< trp-) h-nou-ti (< gъb-) u-s-nou-ti (< -sъp-) :!: The verb snou-ti (pres. snu-ji) does not belong to the 2nd verbal class. NB: snou-ti (snu-ji) vs. u-s-nou-ti (u-s-nu) (different verbs with different roots)
I agreee. I should stick with the general rules. If a rule is correct 95% of the time, I will just try to work with that. I should leave all the irregularities fo someone alot more advanced in the language than I. If I follow the basic rules, I will at least be correct most of the time. Never expected to be correct 100% of the time. That would be asking too much. But now I know, when I see nout at the end of a verb, I should be on the lookout for whether the 'n'is part of the root or the stem. lehnout si........leh..root out...stem padnout.........pad....root nout...stem zapomenout....zapomen..root out...stem But...for purposes of conjugation, it is all the same. u,eš,e,eme,ete,ou(í)
The problem is that most of the irregularities occur in the most frequently used verbs (that is why they are irregular :wink: )...
Yes. The Latin verb habere (= to have) is fully regular, because the Romans used it rarely (they used to say e.g. "2 children are to me" instead of "I have 2 chidren."). On the other side in the Romance languages the verbs avoir, avere, etc. are highly irregular. They are worn-down by frequent using.
Well, that’s a problem of the definition of the term “root”. Do you consider verbs “plavat”, “plout” and “plynout” to be of one single root? I do not. Of course, all the verbs are from the etymological perspective of one “pl”-family (At first I wrote stem, but I replaced it to prevent another terminological dispute :wink. The decomposition is: something - n - ou - ti In fact, the “n” is always adjective / passive participle suffix since the verbs originated this way: hubit → hubený → hubnout tiskat → tiskaný → tisknout The “n” in “plyn” and “plynout” is the very same suffix. In the words like “plyn” I consider the “n” to be settled as a part of a new root. In the same way, I consider the family of adjective “hubený” meaning “slim” to be separated from the family of verb “hubit” (= exterminate).
usínat...usnout Nechtěl jsem usnout. Byl v televizi něco zajímavého. Řekl jsem ale Aničce. Nemohu už zůstat ve střehu. Usínám. Nemohu si pomoci. Usnul jsem a po pár minutu, Anna mi kopla. ''Hele, to je čast, který chtěls vidět''. Otevřel jsem oči za vtěřinou ale hned jsem znova usnul.
*or better word order: "V televizi bylo něco zajímavého" ** "ve střehu" = "on guard", "střeh" is an initial position during swordsfighting when the swordsman is ready to attack and defend himself, hence used in normal life, but in this context a little bit inappropriate - "být ve střehu" is still something like "be prepared for something to come and aware of one's own surroundings" You probably wanted to say "awake" = "vzhůru". *** first - it is "mě", not "mi", because it is "kopnout někoho" (accusative) second - the situational adverbial (po pár minutách) is not separated by a coma and is an integral part of the phrase, so it is the position one, and the pronoun follows immediately (on the second position) **** either - "kterou jsi chtěl vidět" (standard) or - "kterous chtěl vidět" (colloquial) never - "*kterou chtěls vidět" - the final "-s" represents the verb "jsi" which is a clitic and hence on a second position... the "-s" cannot be affixed to another word see another examples: byl jsi včera ve škole? - byls včera ve škole? byl-li jsi včera ve škole,... - byl-lis včera ve škole,... ,...kterou jsi včera ve škole viděl - ...,kterous včera ve škole viděl etc. Moreover this "-s" is rather colloquial and should not be used in written because it can produce some weird looking words (that are actually really said but only written look strange), e.g.: "...,kterýs včera ve škole viděl" or such. --------- The usage of the verb "usnout" does not seem to make you troubles
Those are great tips. I should just leave colloquial for speech, not writing. Ve střehu...en guarde....on guard Prepare yourself for combat. Šel jsem po špatné sousedství tak jsem byl ve střehu. Minulý týden někdo vykradl mému přítelu. Nebyl jsem schopen už zůstat vzhuru, i když bylo v televizi něco zajímavého, něco na které jsem čekal celý týden. Po pár mintutách mě kopla milá Anna. Vzbud' se! Tohle je část, kterou jsi chtěl vidět. Bručel jsem něco hloupého a rychle jsem znova usnul.
Šel jsem nebezpečnou čtvrtí a byl jsem ve střehu. Minulý týden někdo vykradl mého sousedce jak šel domu z prace. Potom se zloděj vykradl do noci. Kdo ví kde se zrovna ted' skryvá. Proto jsem pořád ve střehu když jsem tam po tmě. Psí stěkají a krysy se honily v odpacich. Nějaké opilí se smějí v parku a pečliví lidé se na mě dívají z okny. Každý stín a každý šum je zloděj. Nebojím se ale. Ten zloděj by se měl o mě bát. Po všem, umím karate.
Vykrást - rob some shop Okrást - rob some person (I'm not sure if "rob" is propriate in both cases in english) Vykrást se - slip away, sneak out, steal from štěkají & honí - both verbs must be in present tense (or both in future tense) bát se o někoho - fear for someone bát se někoho - be afraid of someone[/b] Po všem,... you mean "after all", don't you. In this case you cannot translate it directly, in czech it is kind of idiom - I would translate it as "Konec konců, umím karate." (really?) One more idiom for you: To have heart in boots. In czech "Mít srdce v kalhotách" (To have heart in pants/trousers )
