Subjunctive in Slavic Languages

[Bestiola]

Question for those who speak or have studied Slavic languages, or have any thoughts on the matter - what do you think of subjunctive in Slavic languages? It's been said that Slavic languages have generally speaking lost subjunctive, at least at the morphological level, but are expressing it through indicative, optative, or conditional - would you still call that subjunctive?

Also, it's been suggested that it might have happened due to the development of the aspect, which according to some authors may have caused that subjunctive, at least on a morphological level to disappear.

Also, a related question - what about those languages in between the process, who have more or less lost the subjunctive on the morphological level, but kept the residuals of it, and have started to acquire aspect as well under the influence of Slavic language (like Istroromanian)? Would you still call that subjunctive if it's expressed by some other means?

 

[Tlepolemus]

Question for those who speak or have studied Slavic languages, or have any thoughts on the matter - what do you think of subjunctive in Slavic languages?

Russian is my native language, but I got to know about subjunctive and conditional only when studied Spanish.
These moods do exist in Russian, and are very often used (especially in polite speaking), but they both are marked with the particle "бы", so it is difficult to distinguish which one I use in a particular situation.
Optative exists only in the mind of linguists, and no one native speaker is able to explain what is it.

 

[Bestiola]

Russian is my native language, but I got to know about subjunctive and conditional only when studied Spanish.
These moods do exist in Russian, and are very often used (especially in polite speaking), but they both are marked with the particle "бы", so it is difficult to distinguish which one I use in a particular situation.
Optative exists only in the mind of linguists, and no one native speaker is able to explain what is it.

Interesting, thanks for the response! So, this particle is a kind of marker of the subjunctive (and conditional), and there is some subjunctive morphology in Russian after all (even if very limited).

бы • (by)

1. A verbal particle used to render conditional and subjunctive patterns
   Я говори́л. ― Ja govoríl. ― I spoke.
   Я бы говори́л. ― Ja by govoríl. ― I would (should) have spoken.; I would speak.; I might speak.

 

[Tlepolemus]

Я говори́л. ― Ja govoríl. ― I spoke.
Я бы говори́л. ― Ja by govoríl. ― I would (should) have spoken.

You need to use perfective aspect to form subjunctive (the action is not done yet but perfective):

Я говорил. — I spoke, told.
Я сказал. — I have said.
Я бы сказал, что… — I would say, that…

Your sentence is an example of conditional:

Я бы на твоём месте говорил. — If I were you, I would speak. (lit. In your place, I would speak.)
(Если бы я был на твоём месте, то я бы не молчал.)

 

[Bestiola]

You need to use perfective aspect to form subjunctive (the action is not done yet but perfective):

Я говорил. — I spoke, told.
Я сказал. — I have said.
Я бы сказал, что… — I would say, that…

Your sentence is an example of conditional:

Я бы на твоём месте говорил. — If I were you, I would speak. (lit. In your place, I would speak.)
(Если бы я был на твоём месте, то я бы не молчал.)

Thanks, I copied that from Wiktionary

 

[Bestiola]

You need to use perfective aspect to form subjunctive (the action is not done yet but perfective):

Interesting, so the subjunctive construction is related to aspect.

In Croatian we have similar construction (which we call conditional) but it's not related to aspect.

We can say "Ja bih izgovorio" - (perfective aspect) and "Ja bih govorio" (imperfective aspect). It's hard to translate that to English.

 

[Godmy]

Question for those who speak or have studied Slavic languages, or have any thoughts on the matter - what do you think of subjunctive in Slavic languages? It's been said that Slavic languages have generally speaking lost subjunctive, at least at the morphological level, but are expressing it through indicative, optative, or conditional - would you still call that subjunctive?

I can speak only to this portion of the post: I wouldn't call it a subjunctive anymore, since for me sbj. is something that should have some connection to the subj. of its PIE predecessor. Anyway, I had a feeling that Bulgarian had some morphological remnants in how they periphrase the missing infinitive? (or somewhere else in Bulgarian). But I'm not sure now...

 

[Godmy]

That is, I suppose that fundamentally "subjunctive" is a linguistic concept and should we follow the word etymology, subjunctive should be any sort of mood that is used in some (or most) subordinate clauses WITHOUT changing the actual meaning of the clauses as opposed to if they were independent, but simply expressing purely a syntactic situation (=subordination) in them. In Latin that would be the reported speech largely...

But, then, in the context of IE languages, subjunctive for me is something wider, a more historical concept, something like the Latin defines it.

But then the Czech terminology of Latin terms calls it "konjunktiv" (conjunctivus; also in German I think), which, if I recall correctly, is the original term by Donatus, while "subjunctivus" is something slightly younger that evolved somewhere in the Western Europe maybe influenced by the Greek terminology? It's been too many years since I researched that (a younger me knew it better xD)... So that throws a new chaos to the etymological explanation

 

[Bestiola]

I can speak only to this portion of the post: I wouldn't call it a subjunctive anymore, since for me sbj. is something that should have some connection to the subj. of its PIE predecessor. Anyway, I had a feeling that Bulgarian had some morphological remnants in how they periphrase the missing infinitive? (or somewhere else in Bulgarian). But I'm not sure now...

Yes, exactly, but the verb doesn't change, and again, there is difference in use of aspect - this is what wiki says:

Bulgarian[edit]
Modal distinctions in subordinate clauses are expressed not through verb endings, but through the choice of complementizer - че (che) or да (da) (which might both be translated with the relative pronoun "that"). The verbs remain unchanged. In ordinary sentences, the imperfective aspect is most often used for the indicative, and the perfective for the subjunctive, but any combination is possible, with the corresponding change in meaning.

• e.g. iskam da stanesh (perfective) / iskam da stavash (imperfective) - i want you to get up.

The latter is more insisting, since the imperfective is the more immediate construction. Thus:

• Indicative - че-
  • e.g. знам, че си тук - znam, che si tuk - I know that you are here;
• Subjunctive - да-
  • e.g. настоявам да си тук - nastoyavam da si tuk - I insist that you be here.

Polish too ha some for of subjunctive (according to wiki), but apart from that by particle, no morphological markers for subjunctive:

Polish[edit]
The subjunctive mood is formed using the by particle, either alone or forming a single word with the complex conjunctions żeby, iżby, ażeby, aby, coby.[15][16] The mood does not have its own morphology, but instead a rule that the by-containing particle must be placed in front of the dependent clause.[12] Compare:

• Upieram się, że wychodzi indicative - I insist that he is leaving;
• Upieram się, (że)by wyszedł subjunctive - I insist that he leave;
• Upieram się, że wyszedłby conditional - I insist that he would leave.

The subjunctive mood in the dependent clause is obligatory in the case of certain independent clauses, for example it is incorrect to say chcę, że to zrobi, but the subjunctive mood must be used instead: chcę, by to zrobił.

The subjunctive can never be mistaken with the conditional,[12] despite that in the case of the conditional mood the clitic by and derivatives can move. See that in the following examples:

• Upieram się, że wtedy by nie wyszedł conditional - I insist that he would not have left then [at that time];
• Upieram się, że by wówczas nie wyszedł conditional - I insist that he would not have left then/[at that time]/[in that case];
• Myślę, że on by akurat wyszedł conditional - I think that he would have just left [a moment ago];
• Myślę, że gdyby wyszedł, ... conditional - I think, that if he would have left, ...

There is no conjunction, which would indicate the subjunctive. In particular, there is no żeby.

Compare to the closely related optative mood, e.g. the subjunctive nie nalegam, by wysłał list vs the optative oby wysłał list.

 

[Godmy]

Thanks for the explanation regarding Bulgarian, I was probably wrong, I thought there were remnants of the "real" subjunctive in there, but it looks not (though the Bulgarian verbal system is still especially interesting to me as a slav [or was]). (I always thought Bulgarian, except the missing infinitive, would be a great native language for Attic learners: the verbal system even in the colloquial language is very rich when it comes to tenses [just like Greek*] + it's got the aspect Attic surprisingly used in the infinitive and imperative [as the aorist vs. present infinitive/imperative] etc. which is a concept more difficult to get in its entirety for western learners not used to verbal aspect])

*I know that Croatian has got remnants of that verbal system too, but Bulgarian always seemed interesting to me in the fact that it was "very alive" (or some would linguists put it: part of the "living language")

Polish's is very like Czech In Czech we simply call it conditional (kondicionál). The term "konjunktiv" is used especially only for Latin or Greek (or perhaps German/Spanish as well) - for foreign languages.

 

[Bestiola]

That is, I suppose that fundamentally "subjunctive" is a linguistic concept and should we follow the word etymology, subjunctive should be any sort of mood that is used in some (or most) subordinate clauses WITHOUT changing the actual meaning of the clauses as opposed to if they were independent, but simply expressing purely a syntactic situation (=subordination) in them. In Latin that would be the reported speech largely...

But, then, in the context of IE languages, subjunctive for me is something wider, a more historical concept, something like the Latin defines it.

But then the Czech terminology of Latin terms calls it "konjunktiv" (conjunctivus; also in German I think), which, if I recall correctly, is the original term by Donatus, while "subjunctivus" is something slightly younger that evolved somewhere in the Western Europe maybe influenced by the Greek terminology? It's been too many years since I researched that (a younger me knew it better xD)... So that throws a new chaos to the etymological explanation

Thanks for all that about the etimologies! We also call it "konjunktiv"

I'm a bit baffled with this definition as well - here different authors have different opinions about it. We don't have it on a morphological level either but use the conditional (aorist of the word to be - bih, bi, bi, bismo, biste, bi) in order to express everything usually marked as "subjunctive". Or conjunctive

 

[Bestiola]

Thanks for the explanation regarding Bulgarian, I was probably wrong, I thought there were remnants of the "real" subjunctive in there, but it looks not (though the Bulgarian verbal system is still especially interesting to me as a slav [or was]). (I always thought Bulgarian, except the missing infinitive, would be a great native language for Attic learners: the verbal system even in the colloquial language is very rich when it comes to tenses [just like Greek*] + it's got the aspect Attic surprisingly used in the infinitive and imperative [as the aorist vs. present infinitive/imperative] etc. which is a concept more difficult to get in its entirety for western learners not used to verbal aspect])

*I know that Croatian has got remnants of that verbal system too, but Bulgarian always seemed interesting to me in the fact that it was "very alive" (or some would linguists put it: part of the "living language")

Polish's is very like Czech In Czech we simply call it conditional (kondicionál). The term "konjunktiv" is used especially only for Latin or Greek (or perhaps German/Spanish as well) - for foreign languages.

Regarding Croatian, you mean the aspect? Or verbal tenses? Yes, we have both, although imperfect and aorist are now mostly reserved for older literature, and plusquamperfect is slowly disappearing from use, even if I still use it.

What I find also fascinating about Bulgarian is that Turkic conquistadors came to the Balkans, made a Bulgarian Empire, but then took the language from some local Slavic tribe.

 

[Godmy]

Or verbal tenses? Yes, we have both, although imperfect and aorist are now mostly reserved for older literature, and plusquamperfect is slowly disappearing from use, even if I still use it.

I meant the verbal tense And yeah, I guessed (or remembered) your (Croatian) situation was as such. I think you said once that some of the semi-defunct past tenses got revived in text messages where people needed shorter forms? (=anyway, that's actually hillarrious if true!)

I suppose the aspect is the one thing we all slavs have in common (=though sometimes, as I learned once from my grandmother based on her studying Russian and Bohemistics on her university, the aspects in the exact same phrases meaning the same may differ across the slavic languages without any apparent reason!)

What I find also fascinating about Bulgarian is that Turkic conquistadors came to the Balkans, made a Bulgarian Empire, but then took the language from some local Slavic tribe.

Haha, I know almost nothing about it! That is, the relationship of Turks, their empire and Bulgars. But yeah, sounds fascinating indeed!

 

[Bestiola]

I meant the verbal tense And yeah, I guessed (or remembered) your (Croatian) situation was as such. I think you said once that some of the semi-defunct past tenses got revived in text messages where people needed shorter forms? (=anyway, that's actually hillarrious if true!)

Yeah, we'd say "odoh ja kući" for "I'm going home". That "odoh" is actually aorist That one is still used quite often in fact

I suppose the aspect is the one thing we all slavs have in common (=though sometimes, as I learned once from my grandmother based on her studying Russian and Bohemistics on her university, the aspects in the exact same phrases meaning the same may differ across the slavic languages without any apparent reason!)

Interesting! I read two completely opposing articles on the origin of the subjunctive in Slavic languages and one said it was developed from PIE, the other said that it was a later Slavic invention.

Haha, I know almost nothing about it! That is, the relationship of Turks, their empire and Bulgars. But yeah, sounds fascinating indeed!

The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. They became known as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, but some researchers say that their ethnic roots can be traced to Central Asia.[3] During their westward migration across the Eurasian steppe, the Bulgar tribes absorbed other tribal groups and cultural influences in a process of ethnogenesis, including Iranian, Finnic and Hunnic tribes.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Modern genetic research on Central Asian Turkic people and ethnic groups related to the Bulgars points to an affiliation with Western Eurasian populations.[9][10][11] The Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, i.e. Bulgar language of Oghuric branch.[12] They preserved the military titles, organization and customs of Eurasian steppes,[13] as well as pagan shamanism and belief in the sky deity Tangra.[14]

The Bulgars became semi-sedentary during the 7th century in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, establishing the polity of Old Great Bulgaria c. 630–635, which was defeated by the Khazar Empire in 668 AD. In c. 679, Khan Asparukh conquered Scythia Minor, opening access to Moesia, and established the Danubian Bulgaria – the First Bulgarian Empire, where the Bulgars became a political and military elite. They merged subsequently with established Byzantine populations,[15][16] as well as with previously settled Slavic tribes, and were eventually Slavicized, thus forming the ancestors of modern Bulgarians.[17]

Bulgars - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Anbrutal Russicus]

Optative exists only in the mind of linguists, and no one native speaker is able to explain what is it.

You seem to be projecting your inability to explain something onto the other, represented in this case by the linguists. A core feature of a stereotypical native speaker is being able to speak the language while not being able to explain anything about it. Explaining language is what linguists do. To the linguists, both the subjunctive and the optative moods have the same empirical validity, and linguists have explanations for both of them. Here's sample definitions from Crystal (2008):

subjunctive (n.) (subj, SUBJ, subjun) A term used in the grammatical classification of sentence types, and usually seen in contrast to indicative, imperative, etc., moods. It refers to verb forms or sentence/clause types used in the expression of many kinds of subordinate clause, for a range of attitudes including tentativeness, vagueness, uncertainty. In modern English, the examples which come nearest to the subjunctive occur in ‘hypothetical’ constructions of the type if she were going (cf. if she was going), in certain formulae (e.g. So be it!), and in some clauses introduced by that (especially in American English, e.g. I insist that he go to town). In many languages, it is more productive, e.g. in French.

optative (adj./n.) A term sometimes used in grammatical description, to refer to a category of mood which expresses a desire, hope, or wish. The optative mood (‘the optative’) is chiefly known from Classical Greek. Optative expressions in English use the modal verbs or the subjunctive: May they get home safely, Heaven help us!

You may have heard of the optative in conjunction with some language that doesn't actually have it separately from the subjunctive - if so, its not surprising you couldn't understand it. But there are languages (like the aforementioned AGreek) where the two moods are as distinct as the imperative and indicative in Russian.

To answer @Bestiola's query, Slavic doesn't have the subjunctive as a separate grammatical mood. The бы/by/bi + l-participle construction that sometimes corresponds to the Romance subjunctive isn't used the same way, and in Russian I've seen it called simply the irrealis, which isn't a grammatical mood as much as a type of semantic modality. In most cases however, the Russian бы corresponds to the Romance conditional. The Latin/Romance subjunctive mood expresses the irrealis modality among other things. Crystal again:

realis (adj.) In semantics, a term used in the study of epistemic modality: in a realis (‘real’) assertion, a proposition is strongly asserted to be true, the speaker being ready to back up the assertion with evidence or argument. It is opposed to an irrealis (irr) (‘unreal’) assertion, where the proposition is weakly asserted to be true, but the speaker is not ready to support the assertion. Realis verb forms include the past tense (‘X did Y’); irrealis forms include certain modals (‘X may do Y’). Realis adverbs include fortunately and sadly; irrealis adverbs include maybe and hopefully.

All in all, one wants to try and distinguish grammatial moods from semantic modalities - the former typically express a number of the latter and have rather arbitrary names (e.g. subjunctive = conjunctive in Latin, simply meaning "subordinating/joining together"). It's due to this unfortunate confusion that the word originally meaning 'subordinating' ended up being used to mean "hypothetical". Additionally, it's probably not very useful to call the бы + л-participle construction a grammatical form (and even less a mood), but simply a 'construction' expressing the semantics of 'unreality'.

 

[Bestiola]

To answer @Bestiola's query, Slavic doesn't have the subjunctive as a separate grammatical mood. The бы/by/bi + l-participle construction that sometimes corresponds to the Romance subjunctive isn't used the same way, and in Russian I've seen it called simply the irrealis, which isn't a grammatical mood as much as a type of semantic modality. In most cases however, the Russian бы corresponds to the Romance conditional. The Latin/Romance subjunctive mood expresses the irrealis modality among other things. Crystal again:

All in all, one wants to try and distinguish grammatial moods from semantic modalities - the former typically express a number of the latter and have rather arbitrary names (e.g. subjunctive = conjunctive in Latin, simply meaning "subordinating/joining together"). It's due to this unfortunate confusion that the word originally meaning 'subordinating' ended up being used to mean "hypothetical". Additionally, it's probably not very useful to call the бы + л-participle construction a grammatical form (and even less a mood), but simply a 'construction' expressing the semantics of 'unreality'.

Thanks for that! I've found that Crystal's dictionary, might come in handy.

 

[Clemens]

Isn’t the Latin subjunctive actually the Indo-European optative, morphologically speaking?

 

[Anbrutal Russicus]

Yep, and the Latin future the PIE subjunctive, which I'm being told "was used as a future tense".

 

[Clemens]

Yep, and the Latin future the PIE subjunctive, which I'm being told "was used as a future tense".

I assume you mean the future of the third and fourth conjugations?

 

[Tlepolemus]

I wouldn't call it a subjunctive anymore, since for me sbj. is something that should have some connection to the subj. of its PIE predecessor.

There is a concept of "analytical declension" in Slavistics, when declension is expressed using prepositions rather than morphological change of a word. So, it can be used in teaching English to natives of syntactic languages. For example, in the sentence "culture of Poland" (cultura Poloniae), "of Poland" is a genitive case of "Poland".

1. of + noun — genetivus
2. to + noun — dativus
3. in + noun — locativus
4. with/by + noun — instrumentalis

It's not a real concept of declension, but it serves a similar function.

In this manner, one can call Russian subjunctive as a kind of "analytical subjunctive", comparing it to Latin subjunctive.