Perfective and imperfective describe so-called aspects of verbs in the Slavic languages, but they can be found in vestigial form in the Germanic tongues. This article, directed primarily to beginner students of the languages in which these aspects are present, simultaneously offers a multilingual comparison, a critique of certain books, and a criticism of the definition of aspect as applicable to the English language. German will be shown to be the bridge between English and Slavonic. The purpose is to facilitate the Western European and American mind into occasionally viewing action from the Slavic viewpoint, with the aim of improving one’s grasp of the required verb forms. As such, their formation is touched upon only minimally. Eventual conclusions, if sufficiently novel, might attract the interest of academics.
Table of Contents
[This work shows how the perfective and imperfective aspects work with all the Slavic languages. The article on Russian should contain all data necessary for most undergraduates. Through interpolation, or building upon the information already provided, reasonable conclusions – but not guaranteed as correct, can be made for the other languages.
This article will give a somewhat novel presentation of the perfective and imperfective aspect of all the Slavic languages, insofar as access is had to research materials. The idea is to analyze the quality of the texts, draw together the common threads, to show how various authors word a complex subject, and thus to facilitate the comprehension of the material – without demanding the need for a course in symbolic logic.
(The present version of this text is the result of 7 straight hours of looking for corrections that were necessitated by a transfer of this article from knol to wordpress. The editor is not perfectly wysiwyg, and no control can be exercised over the html coding, so the formatting has lost insofar as information was previouslycolour-coded.)
The use of textbooks from the centuries before the Twentieth may seem out of place, but it is the history of the concept of aspect which validates such references.
The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics (Richards, Platt, & Platt), among other sources, defines “aspect” in practically the same way as the books on various Slavic languages. It states that English has two aspects, progressive and perfect. An attempt will be made to show that such a definition will not do, and the principal reason is that the concept of aspect was created to understand the Slavic languages, and once applied to them, while defining their differences from our language, cannot be re-transported into our culture as something that could be so simply understood; and can only create confusion in the attempted acquisition of, say, Russian or Bulgarian. Further confusion on the issue comes from multiple terms for the same thing, or terms which ostensibly mean the same for two different languages, but end up not being synonymous.
It will be seen that all the emphasis, when speaking about English, or perhaps some other Germanic language, is on some fuzzy idea about the way of looking at temporal aspects of the verb. This focus seems out of place, as the eventual conclusion should show. As a preliminary insight, though, the following idea is offered about the Present Perfect tense of the English language: the rules are exactly the same in England as in the United States of America. Why then, on the BBC, might one hear a hypothetical sentence such as:
“One hundred and eighty people have been killed today in a plane crash”, while the Voice of America, or some U.S. network station would say,
“One hundred and eighty people were killed today in a plane crash”? 
Is this the application of the same rule? Yes, and one might even get away with talking about the temporal aspect of the verb. What is really happening is that the psychology of the two countries views time slightly differently. The rule to apply is that recent past time uses the present perfect; while time which is further back uses the simple past (in this example). For the American, the recent past stopped at noon, say, if the evening news is being presented. For the inhabitant of the British Isles, the recent past includes any part of the day, even if it had been just after midnight. The approach used below will at first seem strange. For the moment, until the article can congeal into its final form, one might consider this as the presentation of evidence. The books on a language will at least give some idea of how the aspects are used, and a brief review will let readers know if a second-hand copy is worth purchasing. The sources, predominantly four West European languages with different grammar rules, will permit conclusions to be made through the eyes of those varied linguistic cultures. Once a sufficient number of sources have been marshalled, this text will make comments on how grammatical aspects apply to the Slavic languages as a whole, and on what exceptions might exist to the general rule. The conclusions will include reflections on how to help understand the concept – it is hoped that some nugget of originality has presented itself.
The Vocabulary of Aspect
This section serves to introduce the reader to the basic vocabulary of aspectology, especially as used in this current article. 
Variant definitions exist elsewhere, either as an author’s opinion, or because of the specific grammatical concepts of a language.
Aktionsart: A German term for aspect, used in Duden. More literally, “action type”. The category is broader than aspect. If aspect were to be compared to the two-kingdoms taxonomy of life on earth, Aktionsart would include, say, families. Herein, those would be of verbs.
Anschaungsform: An etymologically correct German term for aspect, the latter from Latin “aspicere“, to look at. “Anschauen” has the same meaning.
Aorist: A past tense verb form. Definitions are contradictory, recourse to the bibliography is recommended.. Necessary for Bulgarian and Sorbian; and for a residual expression in Serbo-Croatian, which may be learned without complication. (Defintion to be expanded in the footnotes.)
Aspect: “a grammatical category expressing how the action expressed by a verb takes place in time.” How well such a definition would correlate with those found in English, or German, may be seen in the following: Quirk, et. al., in their Comprehensive Grammar …, give a similar definition: “grammatical category in which the verb is regarded or experienced with respect to time” (188). The Duden Grammatik, while ignoring the question of time in its article under Aktionsart, limits itself to asuccinct”the way an action takes place”, (albeit with other additions). The text for Russian by Fennell breezily states that it, “… is merely a way of considering the action” of a verb” (133)”. These definitions, by themselves, do not help understand the concept, so most authors delve into the contrast between the perfective and imperfective aspects.
Aspect of Action: Poorly defined term used by W. Stannard Allen (next section). A sentence stresses the action of the verb, with reference to when something happened, whether explicit or implicit (excluding adverbs which force the use of past, present, or future perfect).
Aspect of Fact: Poorly defined term used by W. Stannard Allen (next section), in which a sentence stresses the status of what is being talked about, rather than the verb. Action is considered as completed. In general, such a definition works admirably with the passive voice. Compare “Aspect of Action”.
Attenuative Verb: A verb which conveys the idea that the action of a verb was only weakly carried out and completed, or that the agent or patient were only slightly affected by it. An example given below is “drizzle”, which has less effect than “rain”. “Parboil” would be an attenuative of “cook”, as “singe” is of “burn”. Same as Diminutive.
Augmentatative Verb: Little used term, opposite of Attenuative verb. “Gorge” for “eat”, or “flood” for “water” are two examples.
Bi-aspectual Verb: A verb that is either perfective or imperfective. The few that exist thus mimic the verbs of the Western languages.
Вид: Bulgarian and Russian translation of “aspect”, related to Latin: videre: to see, hence, how the action is “seen”, or “looked at”.
Causative verb: See “Factative verb”.
Deminutiva, i.e.,Verba deminutiva: Usually verbs of childish use in English, such as “wakie”, “drinkie”, “wee-wee”, and perhaps “lookie”.
Durative verb: Sometimes used with the idea of a verb in the imperfective aspect, in Slovak, an action which is considered “momentary” over an extended period of time, such as “cry”, “wash”, “recline”, “sound an alarm”. There is an eventual stop to the action.
Egressive verb: Also called resultative verb, it is a verb indicating the attainment of an end, perhaps desired, such as “fill up”.
Factitive verb: A verb about the making of something into something else, for example, with respect to some quality. “Harden” means “to make hard”, or, to expand on the thought, “to make something soft into something harder, if not definitively hard”.
Forma frequentiva: Rare term, used by one author to mean imperfective.
Forma simplex: Rare term, used by one author to mean perfective.
Frequentative verb: Inconsistently defined, either as happening regularly or not.
Future in the Past: In the following sentence of reported speech, it is clear that reference is being made to a time in the future, in relationship to the time of the utterance: He said he would go to the symphony. Precisely considered, the reported speech example is an instance of future in the past: After explaining his future plan, he was going tocarryit out, e.g., go the the symphony. More commonly, expressions such as the following: “After he had mastered the language, he was going to be a translator.” (or, more rarely in modern English, but used in some texts, “would” for “was going to”.)
Inceptive imperfect: Term of Greek grammar, relating to action about to begin in the past, and, (perhaps) that this action may come to be completed.
Inchoative imperfect: Same as above.
Ingressive imperfect: Same as above.
Iterative verb: A verb that suggest the periodic, often rapid, repetition of some kind of movement, such as in flutter or pummel, or twirl.
Momentea: See “Punctual”
несвършен вид: Imperfective aspect, in Bulgarian.
несовершенныйвид: Imperfective aspect, in Russian. “категория глагола, выражающая действия в его течении, развитии” (See n. 5). Roughly, verb category expressing action in its course or development.
Performative verb: An verb expressing an action co-existing with its utterance: swear, declare, vow.
Punctual verb: A verb describing an action which happens only for a moment, or when occurring only once: “Toot”, “Click”, “Bump” Contrast “burp” with “Hiccough”, the latter more easily lending itself to being frequentative..
Repetitive verb: A verb describing activities which imply some kind of repetition, but not the same as the iteratives. The action takes place over some time, but comes to a stop. An example given below is “to break up camp”, obviously, the verb phrase translation of a verb of another language.
свършен вид (Bulgarian): Perfective aspect, in Bulgarian.
Semelfactive verb: A punctual verb.
совершенныйвид: Perfective aspect, in Russian, “категория глагола, выражающая ту или иную ограниченность действия во времени” (n. 5, q.v.): Roughly, “category of verb expressing a time boundary of one kind or another”.
Terminative verb: A type of punctual verb, in which the action is longer than that in the case of the punctual verb, but comes to a complete end quickly, such as in “to sign up (for a course)”.
“Aspect” as Taught in English Grammars
A brief look at how aspect is treated in English grammar books in in order for the reader to be able to validate the conclusions of this article. The briefest of treatments has already been given in the first footnote, this will now be fleshed out. A rather common text for foreign students of English, Living English Structure, by W. Stannard Allen, devotes about 3 pages to the subject. He correctly points out that “Slavonic” students can have a problem, but he states that this is “because the ironly Past Tense is a composite one”, leading them to use the Present Perfect. His exact meaning is not clear, as the Russian preterite was only a compound tense in its origins. His manner of writing about aspects also has a certain originality, whether his or not: he refers to aspect of action, which he calls completed in the past, present, or future, with the simple tenses, and with “time more or less precise, according to the time adverb”. He then mentions “aspect of fact”, which is defines an the situation found when one is not interested in the action, but in its “completed fact and its relationship to a given general time aspect”. He states that the Perfect Tenses express this idea. To use an example similar to the one he gives, “He has found his book” puts more emphasis on the status of the book than on its being found. The general time aspect he places with the words “now”, “since”, “already”, “just”, “not yet” and “ever”, by way of example. On the following page, he suggests that because the Perfect is a form of colloquial past in many European languages, such as German, French, and Italian, it might be better to use the terms Before-Past, Before-Present, and Before-Future. Into his list of sentences to illustrate what he is saying, he includes a Russian sentence, which clearly does not have the compound: “я бидел его (бчера)”.
In A Grammar of Contemporary English, by Randolph Quirk, et. al., what might be considered a third point of view is seen. English is said to have “two sets of aspectual contrasts: perfective/non-perfective and progressive/non-progressive.” These are then combined to give a total of 6 forms, in the past and present (90). The perfective goes with certain adverbials indicating time (91), but there are some which apply equally to simple past time, or present perfect (92). The progressive aspect indicates “temporariness – an action in progress instead of the occurrence of an action or the existence of a state” (92). With it are associated such concepts as “limited duration, incompletion, simultaneity, vividness of description, emotional colouring, and emphasis” (93). These latter three are not well contextualized, but a hint is given that adding “always” and “continually” gives the less-than-objective tone. (93) It stands to reason that this list of adverbials could be enlarged. Then the subject is broached, that some verbs cannot be used in the progressive: these are the stative verbs (93-4). It is then clarified that it would be better to speak of dynamic and “‘stative’ uses of verbs” (94-5), such as can be had of the verbs, “to have” and “to be”. The progressive aspect is that attributed to 7sub-classes of which the last 2 are stative, and which are included here, because it can be seen that these groupings have more to do with the issue at hand, than the transmutation of some English verb tenses into aspects (and, it is to be noted, the future did not enter into the picture at all). These verbs denote: activities, processes, bodily sensations, transitional events (our examples: get somewhere, decease, which are synonyms for words used in the Quirk text, and notably, in relation to at least one of the languages below, imply “inception” when used in the progressive (cf. the footnote on the Greek inceptive imperfect) (95), momentariness (cf. the last paragraph here on Polish), such as in punching, and all its synonymous expressions, which last but briefly, causing the progressive to imply repetition. The stative verb categories are “inert perception and cognition” and “relational verb”. (96) These categories might be restated as broadly being those of the mind, the soul, and the senses; and those that broadly imply being.
A few years later, the same group of authors wrote A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. More pages are dedicated to the matter, emphasis here will be given to differences from that which has been shown in the previous paragraph. Aspect is called “a grammatical category in which the verb is regarded or experienced with respect to time” (188), but it is “not relative to the time of utterance” (ibid.). It is admitted, and this is most significant, considering what was said in the previously cited work, that talking about perfective and progressive in English is an oversimplification, because both ideas can be combined in a single sentence (189). Beginning with the perfective, it is then stated that the overlap between tense and aspect is problematic (ibid.), which again supports the present author’s thesis that aspect is incorrectlyfocusedupon in English. Examples of 3 groups using the perfective are given: states leading up to the present, indefinite events leading up to the present, and habit (190), There is some problem with fitting these in with the Slavic idea of aspect. An interesting idea applied to the progressive aspect is that of a small class of verbs is intermediate positioned between static and dynamic verbs, those of stance, such as live, sit, and lie (205). Progressive here implies incompleteness of change. Another category is that of accomplishments, a progressive again implies incompleteness. There are momentary acts and events, and transitional events (208). The perfective progressive takes up about 2 1/2 pages (210-3), but this adds little to the current discussion, rather, as this present article insists – yet again – the application of aspect to English grammar, since it was designed for the Slavic languages, only contributes to confusion.
In the next section, the reader will meet the word Aktionsart, which is considered by some to be the same as aspect. This article respects the latter term as correct for the German language, insofar as the material in German texts exceeds mere discussion of perfective and imperfective. Based on the history of the terms, as much as speakers of English may frown upon the use of a loanword, Aktionsart, and not Aspect, is what the Quirk books discuss.
Different considerations on aspect for English were found in Roderick A. Jacobs’ English Syntax: A Grammar for English Language Professionals. On the one hand, it better helps understand the so-called progressive and perfect aspects. The introduction to the pertinent chapter begins with a sentence which may or may not have been the work of someone from a Slavic country, and it is useful to try to understand why a certain Olga spoke the way she did (199). Aspect, in short, is defined as a “name given to verb forms used to signify certain ways in which an event is viewed or experienced. … whole, as it in in progress, or as being repeated intermittently (199). Through the presentation on the following page, it becomes evident that English has a feature missing in Slavic languages – the ability to combine two aspects, but he does not name this in a way such as “progressive-perfect” aspect. The statement that “aspect was initially used to describe a specific kind of contrast in Russian grammar” we believe, should still be used with Slavic languages, because talk about “time contour” vs. “time reference” on the same page (201) may rather be too metaphysical for the common person. Admittedly, his examples do help clarify the issue – somewhat. The page ends with the statement that “[a]spect is a complicated phenomenon … because it is often impossible to separate the contribution of aspect to sentence interpretations from the contributions of the predicates that occur with the aspect”.
“Aspect” as Taught in a German Grammar
The following is taken from Duden Grammatik, but research into German texts on Slavic languages shows that none of this terminology is novel.
Translations of the German terms may not be ideal, so, as they will be seen again later in this article, they will be given with the German counterpart. The “action type” (Aktionsart) of a verb refers to the way an action takes place, and might also be referred to in terms of “manner of happening” (Geschehensweise), “manner of proceeding” (Verlaufsweise), or “manner of acting” (Handlungsweise). If the verb expresses a time limit, it is perfective or terminative– examples are the German verbs equivalent to the following verb phrases: “climb to the top, take away, freeze up”, and “bring to an end”. These are the following groups: One describes the beginning of an action, the ingressive or inchoative verbswith examples such as: break out, run off, march off”, The other describes the the end of an action: resultative or egressive verbs  Examples taken from the German are burn up, cut through, and the ubiquitous eat up. If no duration of time is involved, one speaks of “punctual” or “momentary” verbs Examples are “catch sight of, find, meet up with, grab, comprehend”. Verbs without a boundary of time limitation, that deal with incompleteness, or permanence, are called imperfective. Examples are: blossom, sleep, freeze, be, stay, last. Verbs that deal with repetition of events are called iterative. Examples are flutter, crawl, and stroke. This is contrasted with action that takes place within a context of time, zeitliche Verlaufsweise, under which the imperfective and perfective have been discussed. A third type of action is expressed through degree or intensity, whether to a greater or lesser degree. The examples given do not easily allow a proper conversion into English, except for sob – intense crying. One could add knock – as an intense tap. An example for a lesser degree is snicker – contrasted with laugh. The final type of action is that which is expressed through additional words – and as it may be seen, this is almost the norm in English. “To the other side” expresses a perfective idea, “to be + present participle” an imperfective, and “hourly” an iterative.
A daily use of verbs of varying degrees of intensity is found on the financial pages: fell – dove, plummeted: rose – shot up, rocketed; or on the weather page: rain: drizzle (attenuated form), shower (intensive form of rain lasting for a brief period), and in the cooking section: warm (attenuatedform) heat (neutral form), broil (example of intensive heating).
The Slavic Languages at a Glance
Public Domain Image of the Balto-Slavic Languages , by ” 123iti “, viewable full-size at Wikipedia, <HERE> . Numbers may be off, but the categories are the same elsewhere.  Considerably lower figures are found in Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/ . This article contains at least some information on all of these Slavic languages.
Below is an attempt to put the above chart into visible form. If this does not work with your browswer, please consult at the above link.
The Russian Language
Original Caption: Kremlin Small Image of a photo taken by Jorge Henrique Cordeiro, and viewable at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhcordeiro/4752117871/ License – Creative Commons: Some rights reserved by jhcordeiro
It is reasonable to assume, considering the body of classical literature, and the size of the Russian population, and the periods in which the Russian Empire or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics held sway over a large portion of the Eurasian continent, that more information will be found on this Slavic language than on any other. Between all the following sources, everything that a beginner should know about perfective and imperfective aspects should be available.
The material in this section is taken from: Teach Yourself Russian. Maximilian Fourman. London: The English University Press, 1943.
One of a series of “Teach Yourself” books, and one of several titled Teach Yourself Russian, all by different authors, each illustrating different theories on language teaching – from a purely prescriptive, to descriptive, and ending up in a functional approach, meaning that the work is best for tourists with a bit of ambition prior to arriving at their intended destination. The first of these dedicates only 3 pages to the topic, of which the third is nothing more than a chart of a 20 common verbs in both their imperfective and perfective forms. Several of these books mention that aspect helps compensate for the fact that, while English has 12 verb tenses, Russian has only 3. It will later be seen, that those 12 English tenses include forms which some writers try to pass off as aspects in English, which is something that does not correspond to what was taught in schools up to sometime in the last 40 years.
Fourman uses, for the imperfective, the terms “continuous, habitual or recurrent”, to describe the actions of the verbs, contrasting with the perfective verbs, whose actions are completed, instantaneous, or refer to a single event, for which reason, there can be no present tense (110). The reader is told that most verbs are imperfective, that the perfective is a form of the imperfective with a prefix, or a changed suffix, that the future of the imperfective is formed by using the verb “to be” in front of the verb; and that the perfective, although having the forms of the present, refers to future time (111). The big question remains, how 3 verb tenses, of which one cannot be used in the present, can be the equivalent of 12 verb tenses even in English, supposing the following: Past + Present + Future in the Imperfective + Past + Future in the Perfective. The total seems only to be 5. This is where the study of different languages can be as rewarding as a collection of stamps or butterflies.
The material in the following section is taken from: The Penguin Russian Course. J.L.I. Fennell, Compiler. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961.
Aspect “is merely a way of considering the action” of a verb”. (133). Upon asking ourselves how this differs from tense, the previously cited specialized Longman dictionary calls it the “relationship between the form of the verb and the time or state it describes”, and leaves us with the gem that “[i]n English, verbs may be in the past or present”. (Could it be without future?) Verbs in the imperfective are either habitual or repetitive, or continuous and uncompleted. Verbs in the perfective either express an instantaneous action, the beginning of an action (remarked upon in the review of the Frewin book on Russian), or the end or completion of an action (134), or a certain time spent in the action (135). Clearly stated is that in order to use the present tense in Russian, only the imperfective can be used, as the present is continuous. (This Fourman had stated in a reverse format, as it were, by saying that for the future, is translated by the perfective, through its present. [See above.]) The imperfective of the future is with the Russian form of “to be” plus the imperfective. For the past tense, perfectives or imperfectives are used, depending on the situation.
The author suggests, in the case of the future, asking oneself how often, (136), to illustrate, our own examples – imagine asking a child what[s]he wants to do upon growing up:
I want to watch television, implying every day, all the time, many times, vs.
I want to get married. (Only once, if the answer is to be as it would usually have been over 100 years ago.)
Fennel goes on to mention 3 verbs which can only be followed by infinitives in the imperfective: understand, read, and laugh. (136)
In the discussion on the imperative, it is stated that negative imperatives are nearly always expressed through the imperfective verb form, except in the event that a warning is being given. Unfortunately, Americans may not be quite used to the form, “Mind you don’t …”, so here an alternate is suggested: “Don’t you dare ..”
The remaining considerations have more to do with knowing the vocabulary than with strict rules, in the same way that in a simple English dictionary, the definition of “bought” might not be found, unless the user knows to look for “buy”.
The material in this section is taken from: Teach Yourself Russian. Daphne M. West. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991.
This book, focusing on a communicative approach for possible future tourists to a no-more-existing Soviet Union, which, accidentally or intentionally, at least subliminally, it suggests as having been a great place. With a fairly heavy dose of grammar for such a tourist, she allows a claim to be made that the material presented is based on the Council of Europe’s Threshold guidelines. The 1992 Introduction to the reissue of the book recognizes that there were changes in the Commonwealth of Independent States’ place names and prices – now misrepresented in the text – but insists, unnecessarily it would seem, that the language had not changed. It lacks both an index, and the table of contents is barely skeletal. Based on the preceding, a cursory treatment of aspect is rightfully expected. To illustrate: the perfective and imperfective are first seen in Chapter 9, the English translation of the title being, “When does the train leave?”. Part 6 of the chapter deals with the verb “to go”, where a chart is found for the present tense, emphasizing that one form of the verb is used for habitual or repeated action, and another for “one occasion, one direction”. The validity of the two types also applies to infinitives. (p. 119). Twenty-four pages later, the reader is informed that Russian has two kinds of future tense, one for actions that are “incomplete, unspecific, repeated or continuing”; while a second form is used for actions which are “specific, single, or completed”. The terms used in this book are the compound, or imperfective infinitive, and the perfective infinitive. On the following page (144) it is said that from that point on, both forms of the infinitive should always be learnt, though one page further on, it is discovered that some verbs only have one form. Finally, muddying the waters of terminology a bit, in speaking of the past tense, it mentions that there are only two forms, and that they are formed from the [im]perfective infinitive (or [im]perfective aspect), thus suggesting that aspect is an infinitive. The wording for the use of the proper form is the same as for the future tense, minus one word in each case, viz., “[un]specific”. (143-4). It is stated that verbs of motion have 3 possible past tenses, two imperfective, and one perfective (compare Steinitz, herein), the first of the 2 imperfectives implying habit, or return, the second an action in progress in the past, while the perfective could be translated as “set off”.
Knowledge of German gives a certain head start to the learning of Russian, in that both languages have declensions of 3 genders. Through [the publisher] Duden’s Grammatik, the present writer already got a better clue as to how aspect is viewed in the Russian language, which is the basis of the argument to be presented here, on how it should be used in English. This point of view was nicely pointed out in a little book supposedly useful both as a [school]text and for self-study, Russisch in 26 Lektionen, by Wolfgang Steinitz. Three examples are given of how a verb might be considered as perfective as opposed to imperfective in German, the second two of these are translatable as the pair. Dictionary translations do not always bring out the fine distinctions that are necessary to understand what is meant, so the present translations of the two pairs are based on the meanings that most clearly convey the difference:
looked vs. caught a glimpse of
ate vs. ate up 
Steinitz adds that these distinctions are not common in German. Of special difficulty for translation into English was the first example, as dictionaries suggest either synonymous values, or, through a complicated process of checking the German definition, and discovering that the best translation of the definitions requires it to be considered as an obsolete form – though definitely perfective.
learnt vs. learnt by heart
Another potential obstacle here is that “learnt” must be understood as “study”, etc., with no guarantee as to the results; while the perfective form suggests success, which might be another word to describe occasions for the proper use of the perfective form. In a footnote, the author admits that the subject is difficult, and strongly advises learning the difference between the two forms, without wasting too much time on an active mastery at the beginning. (p. 72) Two examples are given of adverbs which suggest incompleteness, or completeness, “often”, and “yesterday”, respectively, but the word “adverb” was not used, rather, the in/completed activity is what Steinitz mentioned. These, he states, happen in the past and future, but completed action is impossible in the present (73). The appendix deals with a special problem for German speakers, which it specifies is not so for those who know English, specifically, if a verb (of what happens to be a certain type of movement) could be understood as being in the continuous or progressive, (specified, concrete) or simple present (unspecified, abstract). This only happens with imperfective verbs. (165) While Daphne West only gave one verb, and here a list is given, it is West (among others) whose explanation is more concrete, and much easier to understand, while Steinitz is more abstract.
Getting different points of view is facilitated not only by reading different books on a subject in the same language, but being able to access viewpoints on a subject in foreign languages, as has already been done by looking at German. The following, in keeping with this philosophy, is taken from Marie-François Bécourt and Jean Borzic’s Le russe en 90 leçons et en 90 jours, (Livre de Poche), Librairie Générale Français, 1977. Happily, it is indexed; less is to be said, however, about the pretensions expressed in the words of the book’s title. When the idea of aspect is finally broached, though obliquely, it is stated that practically all preceding material in the book used verbs considering action in development, whether past present, or future, or a repeated action – and that these are imperfective verbs. When one wants to insist on the completion of the action, or its result, whether in the past or the future, one has action at a certain point, and thus the present cannot be used. Infinitives of perfectives express an action taking place but once, with a view to its completion. (100) Imperatives followed by negatives use the imperfective, as they are advisory, but warnings go with the perfective, cf. the previously mentioned “Don’t you dare…” (200) Later, imperatives are divided into invitations to do something (imperfective, and one might imagine the translation of the invitation as prefixed with the word “Do”), and orders or requests (this translation needs a stronger word, perhaps “command”) are preferably followed by the perfective (the example is with the word, “please”), (217). The verbs удаться, забыть, and успеть (have time to) are followed by infinitives of the perfective aspect, though the corresponding imperfective verbs may be followed by either aspect. (230) Unnecessarily, we are told that when a command expects an action to be taken fully, the perfective is used. Further, we see that an action in the past, when its completion was not in mind, even though it was finished, uses the imperfective. (242). The correct way to consider some other verbs is later given (246). One might not learn Russian in 90 days with this book – dare one say that knowing a phrase of a language equals speaking it? However, it did have a contribution to make, which could have been even better, had it included a Russian vocabulary.
The material in this section is taken from: Teach Yourself Russian. Michael Frewin, Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton, 1977.
This book is robust, yet modestly states its mission as being for beginners. It lacks a Russian vocabulary section, but does have an index, way back on the four hundred and twenty-first page. Its introduction to aspect is very close to that mentioned in the Bécourt and Borzic book, almost down to the page number (98). The point is made that the concept of aspect compensates for a simple tense system. Perfective focuses on completion or successful outcome, imperfective on an action in progress at some time, but when attention is not on the beginning or the end. (98). The “attitude of the speaker”, his concern with the aspect of what happened, is what determines the verb form (99). Any frequency of action implies use of the imperfective. “When an action occurs only once, the perfective is used, whenever either completion … isemphasizedor single actions of short duration are involved.” (99) Sometimes words such as adverbs of time or manner help users to know that the imperfective is in order, while words expressing suddenness or short duration suggest the perfective. (100). Emphasis, in a paragraph prefixed with “N.B.”, is placed on the complexity, and often subtle nature of distinctions, which are beyond the scope of the book, which is thus giving guidelines, more than rules. (100). Four verbs are given which change meaning in the perfective forms, these are (in English) :
talk, speak vs. say vs. “have a little chat” (see next paragraph)
see vs. catch sight of (cf. similar pair in Steinitz)
know vs. get to know, learn (a similar pair in Steinitz, but different!)
go, drive vs. set off, leave (beginning of an action, rather than result) (Cf. West)
Certain verbs, translations of “begin”, “finish”, and “continue”, are never followed by the perfective infinitive. (103). The past form было is used with past perfective verbs, ironically, to show that an expected course of action was not carried out, and is translatable by “was/were going to” (108). The less emotional of the verbs for “like”, навйться, for the past tense uses the perfective aspect form, otherwise, it is implied that something was once enjoyed, but feelings about the one-time pleasure have since changed. We are told that there are other verbs like this, but not which (123). The imperfectiveinfinitivefollows нельзя in its meaning of “must not” (124). New, up to this point, is that a verb pair, for example, the first of the four in the previous examples, can have a prefix with по-, which is not the “true” perfective, but a perfective form with a limiting function, translatable by “a little”. Then the warning comes: that some true perfectives have the same prefix! (125).
Readers are informed of special rules or translations at various times, unfortunately the index does not list them all. The perfective form of “become”, i.e. стать, can mean “begin” (165). The perfective of “be able to”, in the sense of “know how to”, суметь, could mean “manage” (166). For “to run”, бежать is the specific term, while бегать is the general term (187). This should be seen as distinct from what Daphne West said about future tenses. Here, the future imperfective is divided into 2 categories, a mysterious-sounding “actual progress of a future action” (one would have to read the examples to understand what that means, otherwise it would seem a future action is not “progressing” yet in the here-and-now); and a future action which will be frequent and habitual. The future perfect of English is to be translated by the future perfective (201). Some perfective verbs are used for beginnings, not the ends, or results of actions. This happens with the prefix по- in expressions about the weather, and feelings, while with verbs of colour, a turning (changing) to the final form is considered. (205-6). The ideas about beginning, or becoming, are continued with words beginning, in the perfective form, with за-, of the imperfective translations of be interested in, shout, sing, rustle, laugh, talk, sparkle, and whirl. One sees that 37.5 % of this list contains words that would at best be in weekly, or monthly use, but not daily. There is a group of words in which the imperfective implies an attempt to do something, and the perfective the successful outcome: try to solve – solve, guess (try to) – guess (successfully answered), try to catch – catch. The author does not tell us that in English, the words “try to” may not have been used, which means that care must be taken in translation. The final hints come on pages 276-7 for certain verbs, primarily of motion, but which are more interesting because of the potential for mistranslation. A group of verbs of motion prefixed с- imply a full two-way trip, but сходитьas a perfective verb of motion must not be confused with the imperfective of the same form meaning “get down, off”. Another group of verbs with the same root, implies movement over an entire area, when the suffix is ис- or из-. Caution must be exercised with избегать. Verbs for “climb” and “drive (animals)” have double imperfectives (277). Imperatives follow the basic rule, but, the imperfective is used for invitations and requests, while the perfective is used with commands, sometimes with “please”. While the former is more polite, when not used with “please”, it is stronger, if repeated after an order has not been carried out, rather like the British sergeant addressing a recruit with the sarcastically shouted “sir”, no respect intended! Negative imperatives are usually imperfectives, except when more of a warning than an order. (141). However, normal rules for aspect cannot be applied easily, for example, an imperfective is used for ones’ social equals, and the perfective for a superior to an inferior. (142). This is really saying the same thing as has just been said in the first 2 sentences here, though, one is more polite with one’s equals. There are verbs whose imperfective imply an attempt to do something, while the perfective is the successful outcome. try to solve vs. solve, guess vs. guess (2 different meanings), try to catch vs. catch (236).
The following material is from a Soviet-era text, published for speakers of Spanish. It was written by Nina Potapova.
Emphasis is on action which is not completed – continuing, or repeating; or terminated, ceased, or the result of the verb in use – so here there is nothing new about imperfect and perfective (98). The idea of “result” parallels that in Polish and Ukrainian. Additional wording for the imperfective is translatable by: duration, repetition, and habit, and then some adverbials of frequency follow. Past imperfectives can be translated, usually, by the construction of forms of “estar” plus the gerund. Almost all imperfectives have a corresponding perfective, (99). (There is a reason for including this seemingly trivial point anew.) In the future, perfective verbs express an action to be realized, carried out to the end, or which obtain a goal (102). Readers are warned about the conjugation of есть and съесть, and not to confuse есть with быть -есть (182). Similarly, they are warned about бегать being a verb for a habitual or repeated action, and бежать the verb for action at a specific moment (203). Caution is also advised for the difference between the translations for “to be seated/sitting” and “to sit down” or “have a seat”.
A book in French which claims to recycle and perfect one’s knowledge of Russian, Communiquez en russe, (Presses Pocket), gives a few additional nuggets of information on aspectual usage. Going from the general to the particular, the book(let) first points out that the imperfective considers action along a lineal continuum (action-ligne), while the perfective considers action at a point. It then contrasts the use of imperfective and perfective (this order is followed in the remainder of this paragraph), by examples in 4 categories. The first group is description of action (designation de l’action) vs. an action which has finished, and has a result. It is shown that for the past action in French(passé composé), the basic translation is the same, so to emphasize the perfective, something like an explanatory addition implying that the action was finished is required. The second category is repeated action vs. a unique or momentary one. The third contrast is between stating the duration and insisting on the result, by not stating how long the action lasted. The final grouping pits attempts against successful outcomes (242).
A page by page analysis of the explanatory notes to the dialogues gives some information which definitely helps the learner achieve a higher level. Taking the sentence, “He has not arrived yet”, the use of the imperfective supposes that the speaker has not yet seen the person being talked about. (19, note 6). It might be added that this example accords with Fennell’s (supra) assertion that the negative is rarely used with the perfective. It is learnt that помнить does not have a perfective (35, note 9). The only imperfective that can be used with было is хотеть (57). Contradicting other sources, обещать is considered both perfective and imperfective, although there is a second perfective form, пообеща́ть (63). Нельзя followed by a perfective infinitive means “it is impossible to”, otherwise, with the imperfective infinitive, “must not”. A question beginning with the idea “Didn’t you”, translated with the imperfective, suggests (the accusation of) a lack of foresight (123).
A small book, 30 Stunden Russisch für Anfänger, (Langenscheidt), which actually supposes that someone could learn enough Russian in 30 hours to converse with Russians over many matters of daily life is obviously for even a higher class of genius than the previously mentioned text offering to teach Russian in 90 days. Be that as it may, it does have some good insights on the question of aspect. As a curiosity, it might be added, that the translation into German is “Anschaungsform“, while in Russian, it reduces to вид. A small number of verbs are always “complete” (115), supposedly forming the imperfective by change of termination. (Note: It is understood, that the normal presentation is always of the imperfective form, followed by the perfective, but on this page, it was done in reverse.) A word used previously in the text is also interesting, Handlungsarten: ways of acting, as always, marking the completed and incompleted action. Here it is again mentioned that most verbs have 2 forms, a point which is being made for a reason here. The perfective or completed has only past and future, and deals with the successful outcome (Fortgang) of the action, answering the question, obviously for the past only, “What has happened now?”; or, referring to action which is to begin (eintretende Handlung), or else to uniqueness (Einmaligkeit) or completion.(35) The imperfective (unvollendete Handlung) deals with duration, answers the question, “how long?¨” and concerns repetition, occupation (being busy) with a task, (Beschäftigung), descriptions of habits, customs, usages (practices), conditions (Zustanden), etc, answering the question, “What has already been”, or “With what is one occupied?”. (36) Although this is all, it adds new ideas to the understanding of the nature of aspect, in ways which have not yet been seen. The definition of the perfective as shown here is a bit deficient, but that of the imperfective is most useful.
Russische Grammatik, by Berneker and Vasmer, dedicates around 14 pages to what is called Aktionsart. The chapter begins by introducing the reader to the traditional 2-part division of Russian verbs, applicable in most cases. This is called виды глагола, Anschauungsform des verbs, usually named “Aspect” (122). But this book prefers the term Aktionsart, which may or may not be the same, according to which author is writing. The two forms are named in Russian and Latin, Verba perfectiva, imperfectiva, with a Germanic capitalization of the noun. It is mentioned that this was a practice in earlier times in Germanic languages, specifically the Gothic. Of the 3 examples given, two are frequent in the sources: to beat/beat up, and to glance/catch sight of. (123) Page 124 contradicts 122, by saying that every verb has 2 forms (“Jedes Verbum hat seine zwei Formen: eine imperfektive, einfache (ohne Präposition), und eine perfective, mit eine Präposition zusammengesetzte“). The present of the imperfective is called a true present, and is compared with the present continuous in English (Note: For those not familiar with Spanish, German and French, the simple present often is used for the English continuous, German, in fact, has no genuine continuous form, though a roundabout method exists, especially in dialectical speech.) Then the future with the imperfective form is mentioned, with its auxiliary verb (124). It is pointed out that the question being answered is “What will you be doing”, not “What will you get done?”. It is mentioned that стану is often used as the auxiliary in place of буду. German perfect verbs are usually translated with the Russian imperfective past (preterite). The authors state that the same is true for the French “imparfait“, but that the “passé défini” is translated through the perfective past form (125). The discussion then goes on to the imperative, that the perfective implies that a command is to be carried out at once, while the imperfective, often given to a student, implies the necessity of constant effort in the command given, e.g. “Write better” is not meant for this occasion only (it is assumed?). The difference is even applicable to the infinitives, depending on the auxiliary used, with a translation of “can”, one is in the face of an ongoing process, for example, while with “want to … (now), the one-time action is implied.
While it is not the intention of this essay to discuss formation, there is an important point here, which relates to what is said elsewhere: that perfectives are often formed by the addition of prefixes, which must be ascertained either through a dictionary, or through experience, but the most common is по- Then an example is given of various prefixes added to the German form of “write”, suggesting that such a process in Russian makes them all perfective. An example in English, from a Latin root, is this series: Cede (imperfective, if in Russian, while most of the following would all be perfective): accede, exceed, intercede, precede, proceed, recede, decease (from Latin, decedere), among others, some more remotely related, such as supercede (127).  An interesting question then comes up. If verbs such as those just enumerated act as perfectives in Russian, how can the imperfective be obtained? The answer is in the iteratives. Supposedly, creation of the iterum is possible for almost all Russian verbs, but they are almost always used with prepositions, or in fixed expressions, and commonly in ordinary speech. As for the rest, their use is in the Verbalkompositis, where the material gets a bit complex until it is finally concluded that rules are necessary for the formation of the iteratives (128). This is, for example, with the infix “ва”. (129) Two more pages follow on the procedure. The text then goes on to what are called Simple Perfective Verbs, those being formed without a prefix (132). Proceeding with this topic on the next page, it is first mentioned that these verbs must be impressed upon one’s mind. Then verbs which can exist in either the abstract or the concrete are mentioned (see below). (134-5, going a little off-base in 136), with what are actually perfective – imperfective pairs which have nothing in common as to their roots, such as Брать, Взяать (136). The reader is then cautioned about verbs with prefixes which are imperfective (137).
The following is taken from Russische Konversations-Grammatik by Fuchs and von Bubnoff, which deals with verbal aspect in Chapter 27, “Die Aspekte des Verbums“, pp. 153-7. The vision of aspect is unlike that of any other work consulted.
There are only three verb tenses in Russian, past, present, and future, but this (situation) is only apparent, because the constancy (Festhaltung) of the main meaning of the infinitive has to be considered underdifferentfacets (Gesichtspunkten), basically the following:
The several forms of the infinitive which express these facets are called aspects (154). (It must be admitted, this is a bit redundant, but this is the presentation in the book, and as the above four-fold classification shows, it is original.) It is absolutely incorrect to form a future from a verb of the perfective form, preceding it with вуду. Further aspects are the definite and indefinite: определённый вид vs. неопределённый вид, where the latter refers to potentiality (can do the action of the verb, such as in “Birds fly”, while the former deals with the actual fact, e.g. “Birds are flying away from the shotgun blasts” (155) They occur especially with verbs of motion and perception (156). All these aspects may not be found for a specific verb, and it is therefore necessary to consult a good dictionary. A further aspect is the inchoative, which deals with the beginning of an action (156). Many verbs only have one form for the two aspects, such as the translations for “to order” and “to wound”. Others have only one aspect, with or without a completely different verb to express the other aspect. A confusing example of the latter is разговаривать, an imperfective given with the translation “converse”. (268) It does have a completely different meaning though, as the imperfective pair of a slightly different and substandard form of the perfective разговорить.  Worth mentioning for two reasons, is the example given for an imperfective, походить, used with на кого; firstly, because it is not mentioned that the same verb can be a perfective in the meaning of “walk up and down, promenade (for a while)”.  The second reason has to do with the the authors’ mentioning of concrete and abstract aspects, synonyms for the previously-mentioned indefinite and definite forms. A table of verbs of motion is appended (269), one of these verbs is ходить. It has already been mentioned above that the prefix по- plays a part in the formation of perfectives, even if not “true”. 
Nicholas Maltzoff wote a book on Russian Grammar which claims to give the essentials, while serving as a complete guide for both students and professionals. It does offer a few insights not found in any of the previously consulted texts.
In the introductory page on verbs, it is read that there are two aspects, the imperfective, which is used to express continuous or repeated action, and the perfective, (usually) for the completion, sometimes for the beginning or duration of an action, the former, to be doing something – again, repeatedly orcontinuously, the latter, to do something. (See Berneker and Fuchs for better description) (142). With verbs about the beginning, continuation, or finalization of an action, infinitives are in the imperfective (144). The present, instead of the future, (present of anticipation) is used chiefly with verbs of motion, and cannot be used at will (153). Later the aspects are mentioned again, with nothing new about the imperfective, though it is mentioned that the perfective stresses result, or deals with acts of short duration, or sometimes to those acts that require somewhat more time – this is new. In that latter event, it is meant that something took place “for a while”. Aspect is about the nature of an act at the moment it takes place (157). Many perfectives are formed by adding a prefix, sometimes a prefix forms a “modified perfective”. The prefix по implies the completion of an action (159), doing something for a while, gradual change, acts of short duration; and, with Definite (Actual) verbs of motion, the beginning of the action. For a small number of verbs, за expresses beginning, more usually, the completion of an action. (160) A list of verbs with only imperfectives in given (163), dual aspects verbs are next (164). Since rules are only guidelines, students should stick to them (165). A form of repetition, especially in sentences containing раз, often uses the perfective instead of the expected imperfective. Using the imperfective instead of its contrary is more common, especially when the two forms have slightly different meanings (165). What was just said, goes for the past tense. More on this follows in the next 2 1/2 pages, Negated verbs tend to be imperfective (167). Three pairs of sentences showing both aspects for a verb suggest that matter-of-fact communication of an event goes with the imperfective, but if the action was not done deliberately, it would be perfective (168). Imperfective futures instead of the perfective are often used in cases similar to those where the same event happens in the past, and are best translated by, in the negative, “not going to”. If an action is going to take place right away, the perfective may be more common than the imperfective (170). The perfective future may resemble a wish or command, or a generalization on the part of the speaker (179). It is sometimes used in narration, as a historical present (172). The imperfective imperative often emphasizes doing something immediately, and may therefore seem impolite (178), but when negated, the imperfective is used, with the exception of verbs of warning, and for “Don’t forget” The perfective imperative sounds more polite, as it suggests that a person do something at a convenient time (179), but not with intransitive verbs of motion (180). Fifteen pages are dedicated to verbs of motion, the imperfective future does not stress destination, but the motion itself. The definite form is about movement in one direction. Past imperfectives often imply round trips. “As a rule”, “normally”, “more frequently” are applied to one case or the other (196), as seems to be the norm for these grammars. Non-negated action is usually with the definite form, the indefinite would imply in several directions. In negation, the indefinite is the more usual, if the definite form is used, it is the action itself which is stressed (196). Some prefixed verbs have dual meanings, and belong to different aspects cf сходить.
Note: There are some Russian verbs which are attenuative, but fewer than in Czech (q.v., its last paragraph).
Non-Russian Slavic Languages
The information on aspect for Belarusian is minimal, perhaps because of a feeling that it is a Russian dialect, or perhaps because famous individuals from this country are barely known to Western Europe and America. The briefest of references is given in the linked document, for those who read German. ( Search “Aspekt” or go to page 570.) The language itself consists of 20 dialects (Weißrußland, by Dirk Holtbrügge). Further help on the question might be obtained by considering the different shading of aspectual uses between the East and the West of the Slavic-speaking lands, in the article by Stephan Dickey (cf. Bibliography). One French book on Belorus, Le Petit Futé Biélorussie goes so far as to include a section on the Russian language for the tourist. Up until 2003, it seems that there were only around 5 usable books on the language, some with 80 pages or less. In the 1950s, the quality of the language was severely degraded through the influence of Russian. While the following image does not pertain to grammar, it shows both White Russian language and Ukrainian commonalities with Russian.
The link in this sentence gives a simple course in Belarusian , but as for aspect, it recommends checking with a text for the Russian or Ukrainian languages, because of their similarities (pp. 55, 57).
Part of a scan of a postcard from Daguestan , made by the author. Note the slight change in spelling between the first and third lines, of the word for “Post(al)”: Russian and Belarusan. The second and third lines showкартка дла for Ukrainian and Bielorusian. (Author’s use of variant spellings is deliberate.)
Original Caption: “Ensemble Trakia. Bulgarian traditional dances” This photo was taken from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7457783@N07/3082143460/ License Some rights reserved by Eli Wolf
This is a language without infinitives, thus reminding one of Arabic and Hebrew, while the conjugation of the forms of the English “to be” is vaguely reminiscent of the Latin-based languages, at least in the present tense. Two books are reviewed, the first one is for beginners, the second is the second part of a Bulgarian text for those who read English. The first review is of the book, Colloquial Bulgarian, by George Papantchev.
The question of aspect is first broached on page 78, and defined “as a way of looking at action” (79), which is reminiscent of the German word “Aktionsart” found elsewhere in this text. Bulgarian translations are given of the two terms, свършен вид, and несвършен вид: we are told that the one is for completed, and the other for “uncompleted [sic], habitual, or repeated action”. What is novel in this book (in relation to others reviewed here) is the statement that “even a verb that has only one of these forms can easily acquire its opposite” (79). Imperfective verbs can be used in all tenses, perfectives, usually, only in the future and “simple” past. A chart on page 80 makes clear that the simple past, then, would not normally be used in the imperfective form, and the same is true for our past perfect. On the other hand, English’s past imperfect (i.e., past progressive, or past continuous) does not exist in the perfective. It is to be noted that the simple past, for Papantchev, includes the present perfect (auxiliary “have”), a trait shared with the past indefinite; while the past perfect is our pluperfect, The present, future, and past indefinite include both simple and progressive forms. All of this can be considered perfectly logical, but one may wonder why there is no pluperfect continuous. It must have been considered unimportant. The simple future tense uses a particle, transliterated, shche, not an auxiliary as most of the other Slav languages. If the perfective form of a verb exists, it is the one usually used for the future. (81-2) The past imperfect is formed only from imperfective verbs (100). The simple past tense, translated by the same into English, or perhaps by “finished + gerund” has no exact equivalent in our language. (114) The past perfective active participle looks like the Russian verb in the past tense, i.e., it could end in “ал”, as is seen in the examples, but is declinable, and formed by adding the “л” to the stem of the simple past tense.(125) The past imperfective active participle is likewise formed by adding “л” to the stem of the past imperfect tense. (126) The past indefinite tense (translated with a present perfect, p. 146) describes actions in the past, the results are “available at the moment of speaking”. Perplexingly, it is stated that it does not matter when the action took place (though we assume that it is in the past), but, more clearly, we know the result at the moment of speaking. The past perfect tense seems to be the same as in English, but again confusingly, it is read that it is also (by implication of the words “not only”) “in relation to the moment of speaking” – words which would probably best remain deleted, in order to make the meaning clear. Future in the past looks the same as in English (166), and the same can be said for the future perfect (177). This needs the past perfect perfective participle. It should be possible to say the same about the future perfect in the past, but unfortunately, the sample cited sounds more like an implied conditional, “would have” …. + past tense. According to the definition, it is the form suggesting a future in relation to a past “moment” (185). It sounds like reported speech of the future perfect, in relation to an act in the future.
The conditional is not quite like in English. It is defined as the tense used to “express action we are willing to perform”, or that could have taken place under certain circumstances. There being only one form, it is necessary to note that the first of the two instances, implies “if (the person in question) could”, while the second form, is our “would have … “. Polite expressions that English begins with “would” are included, (195) which is logical, if one considers that the formula comes with the implication, “if you can, etc.” It uses the past perfect active participle. The indirect indicative mood is the last item worthy of special note (207). It removes the speaker from stating what might be a fact, by only suggesting its possible truth. In German, for example, the following news headline would be translated by the subjunctive:
Spokesman says President resigned.
The text would have reworded the above to “Spokesman: President is said to have resigned.”
While Bulgarian is defined as the easiest of the Slavic languages (p. 1: Introduction), it is seen that the terminology for verb forms is at times highly confusing.
The following review is of a text by Milka Khubenova and Ana Dzhumadanova. The first part of the text is unavailable to this writer. Subjectively, it might be supposed that it contains all the easy material, which, with a bit of luck, is covered in a volume such as that reviewed above. Here is what the second part has to offer:
The present active adjectival participle is only derived from the imperfective (11). It is rare in conversation. (12). Rather than saying “past perfective active participle” as in the previously cited work, the formed is named “past active (perfective) participle”, and to clear up any doubts, the Bulgarian name is included (17).
The Bulgarian present perfect tense is much like in English, indeed, as far as the examples are given for the interrogative and negative sentences, there is no denying the fact (20). There is one notable exception, and it involves the type of sentence which has been presented in this article’s introduction as being different in British and American English. Bulgarian takes an intermediate view between the two, one might say. Affirmative sentences about some present period of time, be it today, or this week, month, year, or similar expressions, are usually in the past tense, the present perfect is reserved for interrogative and negative sentences (21). Thus, to repeat and modify the previous example, as required:
An aeroplane has crashed today. : British
An aeroplane crashed today. : American, Bulgarian (translation)
Has an aeroplane crashed today? / No aeroplane has crashed today.: British, Bulgarian
Did an airplane crash today? / No airplane crashed today. : American
Regarding the indirect indicative mood, it is said that if the speaker does not think it necessary to distance himself from a reported action, then the present indicative mood can be used (26). The past tense of the indirect indicative mood is straightforward (26), but without looking at a translation, not provided by the authors, the future of this mood (27), with its definition, is incomprehensible – the definition given sounds like an expanded version of the present indirect indicative, and indeed, the authors refer the reader back to that. Of the three examples given, two look like translations of reported speech for quoted words of some event to take place in the future, and the third sentence sounds like an assumption about future action, like an implicit conditional. Easier to comprehend is that the present and future tenses can be used in subordinate clauses to show irony, disagreement, or doubt, as the opinion of another (30). Another use of the indirect indicative is to describe historical events (36), including folk tales (40). Insofar as this construction is unique to Bulgarian, it is not of immediate import to the present work.
The authors now return to the present perfect, emphasizing the adverbs which are commonly used in English constructions, and which can be literally translated in Bulgarian. The difference is that adverbial expressions of definitive past time would also be in the present perfect in Bulgarian, and the examples show that this time, it the construction is not limited to interrogative and negative sentences.
Going more specifically to the subject of aspect, a detailed explanation is given of all the perfective forms of “write”, depending on their prefixes, viz.: copy, rewrite, finish writing, write the end of, write something to the end, write down, enroll, enter, describe, write out (56) This is related to what will be looked at in the final versions of this article, but specifically, on the same page, it refers to the 18 prefixes that form perfective verbs. To thedegreethat prefixes formed perfectives in other Slavic languages, the sources used did not delve this deeply into this formation – justifiable, in that the meaning of the main verb changes. One might also ask, based on the basic definition of perfective verbs, just what is finished, or completed, in the words “copy”, “rewrite”, “describe”, etc.? This article would then like to ignore the question of prefixes, but, in relation to perfectives seen in other languages here, there are some items deserving highlighting: the prefix which implies completion of the action, with the oft-cited example of “eat up”, action in various directions or in scattered places (mentioned later herein), beginning of an action of intensive nature, the examples give actions carried out by the vocal cords (also seen later herein), and a certain group of undoing of actions (57).
Proof of Error Mentioned in the Next Paragraph
The text now makes a mistake, to contradict itself, and the entire tenor of aspect. For this reason, a quote is in order: ” Perfective verbs express an action in its progress without regard to its termination.” (69) Turning the page, one finds, after some examples of progressive, or continuous, or incomplete action, this statement: “. . . if we are to describe an action in progress at a given moment the right verb to use is a verb of the Imperfect Aspect.” (70). Then, a standard definition is given of perfective verbs, that they indicate the termination of an action, that it is completed, and the text insists, it cannot be used in sentences exemplified by a sentence in the present continuous. They may, however, be used in compound sentence subordinate clauses to express a “sequence of repeated actions” (70) Likewise, and more clearly, because of the lack of an infinitive in Bulgarian, any construction with да which follows a regular verb form with personal endings, is followed by the perfective, i.e. a sentence of the variety, “I want to … “.
A Second Error in the Text: Imperfective Aspect was Meant
The present perfect tense of the indirect indicative mood is used to underline the fact that a statement was not only not made by the speaker, but that disagreement is implied, or doubt about the truth. (72) The past perfect tense of Bulgarian and English are the same (95). The conditional “is used to express … an action which takes place only under certain conditions”, plus for desires and polite requests (106). The bygone moment of a future in the past can be expressed in one of three ways: by a clause with a verb in a past tense, by an adverbial modifier, or by implication (111). It is clarified the construction is used for unreal conditionals referring to the present, future, and past (114-5). Furthermore, the idea of future perfect in the past becomes a little less murky now, as it is equated with the Perfect Conditional form of English. The examples are easier to understand in British English, though, because of the use of “I should have” where Americans say “I would have” (115). At any rate, it becomes evident, that without a solid grounding in English verb forms, this book would be difficult to understand. The Future Perfect Tense of English and Bulgarian also coincide (121). A rather complicated rules states that verbs with prefixes of the imperfective aspect in the past tense (where they are rarely used) must have an adverbial of time to limit the duration of the action (177). Only imperfectives are used in the present historic tense (190).
The book continues with many readings in Bulgarian. On the negative side, the pages have not always been properly inked. Similar problems exist with the following old text, available on the web, and unable to be digitalized, due to its use of obsolete characters.
It may be interesting for those who need to read texts written before the modernization of the Cyrillic alphabet, to peruse the book on Bulgarian, by F. C. Morse, published in 1859 . The author was a clergyman form Johnsbury, Vermont, and his was supposedly the second Bulgarian grammar written by a foreigner.  Besides the use of additional characters, a fact which cannot be helped, are quaint ideas in the older sources, such as Morse stating that the use of a Russian dictionary is of tremendous help in understanding the language (Preface), and that, in spite of the division of languages shown above, that there is “a pure Bulgarian of the Western (Macedonian) type.“ Reverend Morse shows some hesitation in his classification of the verbs, as his linguistic knowledge appears to come from the classics, but he identified 7 (10, if variants are included) verb tenses. (64) They may be compared with those listed by Papantchev.
PapantchevMorse: – Morse’s comments
Present Present: habitual action, or action now going on
Future Future (I) form with ще: shall/will: corresponds with out First Future
Future (II) future action as less certain or less definite in regard to times,
Simple Past Aorist: action as completed in some past time, definite or indefinite
Past Imperfect Imperfect (I) : action unfinished at a given past time
Past Indefinite Imperfect (II) “seems to designate an action unfinished in past time”
Past Perfect Perfect: “seems to designate an action completed in past time, defined
or not, and of which traces remain”
Future in the Past Pluperfect (I) : “coresponds [sic] to our Pluperfect of a time more
remote and less definite and certain”. 
Past Perfect Pluperfect (II): not commented upon
Future PerfectFuture Perfect: action which will be completed before or at some
specified future time, the other to express a strong
probability that an action has already been performed.
Note: The Roman Numerals I and II were not use by Morse, who used “first” and “second” “form”. (An unsuccessful attempt was made to insert this information in tabular form.)
The following is a review of comments from a German book on Bulgarian grammar, by Gustav Weigand.
This particular book ignores any connection of Aspect to German. It attempts to show them with special symbols: a circle for imperfective, that is, action without beginning or end, and the ingressive, with an upright stroke followed by a straight line, thus: | ———- , representing an action which begins at a particular moment in the past, and then continues. (101-2). Iterative actions, such as that of a continued series of blows in beating someone, are contrasted with “effectife“, i.e. egressive verbs, where the beating has an intended result, i.e. in the author’s example, death. The former are depicted with a series of dots, “. . .“, the latter with an arrow, more precisely in modern terminology, an angle bracket: “>” (103). Should the action have a beginning and end, symbolized thus:| ———-|, it is inclusive, and perfective. Whether the action, during the time it happened, should be considered perfective or imperfective is immaterial. In reporting, inclusive actions are expressed, with the perfective, then, except for the purpose of livelier, more descriptive narration (103). He then speaks of Momentanverba, the punctual verbs, which are shown with a heavy dot “●”, and the durative verbs. It is stressed that the punctual verbs are usually perfective, but in rare instances, they may be imperfective. The reader is cautioned not to think the the situation is the opposite with the durative verbs. The paragraph on these two ends with a sentence declaring active, passive, and reflexive each to be type of Aktionsart (104). This position has not been found elsewhere. The next interesting observation is that, after stating that those knowledgeable in French know two past tenses, the imparfait, and the passé défini,which then, straight off, are declared to be not two different tenses, but examples of two different Aktionsarten,by which he clearly is speaking of aspect, for the former is imperfective, and the latter, perfective (107). Another oddity, which disagrees with what is often reiterated in this present text, is the assertion that there are instances in which the present tense can be perfective. The first exception is stated for what might be called generalizations, such as in the sentence, once a thief, always a thief (108, with the example changed to an idiom known in English). The second exception might occur in reported speech, and other exceptions might occur in conditional clauses, adverb clauses of time, and some subordinate clauses (108-9). This particular book gives the Bulgarian verb tenses as: Present, Imperfect, Aorist, Future, Future in the Past, Perfect, and Pluperfect. (vi). Unprefixed Aorists are often durative, but through their inclusive character, often perfective. Foreigners are said to have the problem of choosing the correct prefix. Further exclusions may exist in a couple of cases (110-1).
Original Caption: Palace Gardens (below Prague Castle) This photo was taken from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewdust/252336256/ License Some rights reserved by andrewdust. (Links to the photo and to “andrewdust” show him to be no longer active on Flickr).
The following data is taken from the book, Czech, by W.R. and Z. Lee.
This book, as many of the others, has no index. The table of contents does not clearly advise the reader that the introduction to perfective verbs, implying completed action, and imperfective verbs, implying repeated or continuous action, happens in Chapter XV, (p. 44), rather the following chapter sends the reader back, which is fine for those who are going through the work page by page. The idea for the imperfective future is repeated later (51). Perfectives have no present tense, their meaning is in fact for future time. Some perfectives formed with prefixes modify the meaning, sometimes completely. Examples of the latter: moci – pomoci: be able, help; preach – show (completion of this section requires a Czech keyboard). The section is not as well-developed as in some of the texts for Russian. One imprecision is that negative verbs in subordinate clauses often use the imperfective instead of the perfective (129). It is learnt that the rules for perfective and imperfective that the book has given us are only “rough-and-ready” (60). Negative imperatives usually use the imperfective (60). This point has been found valid for Russian.
“Imperfective verbs may be durative, iterative, or frequentative.” (115) The first of these is an immediate continuous action, translatable by “is going”, the second suggests “habitually”, and the last of these, usually formed by the addition of an infix “va” to the form of the habitual, suggests occasionally, irregularly, or rather often. It is mentioned that it is with the verbs of motion that the differentiation is clearest. (115). When there is no iterative form, the frequentative is used in its place, thus giving it both the frequentative and iterative meaning (115). The verbdáti is perfective, it has no durative, the iterative “dávati” (from the form, the same as the frequentative – PKM) is used instead. Eventually, the “va” infix lets us down, for the verb for “to be”, (117) one finds the infix for both the iterative and frequentative, only one might just, it was iterated in the frequentative: bývati, bývávati. Passive constructions are, it is claimed, limited to use in newspapers and officialese, and then in perfective form, when talking about the result of an action. English passives are often translated by a reflexive form, to paraphrase: “French (is) spoken here” would not be translated with the passive in Czech. When a verb in a subordinate clause of a conditional sentence is negative, the imperfective aspect is often used instead of the perfective, as in the case of negative imperatives (129)
The present participle is a literary form. Whatever the time frame, when it is used in a construction using the same time as the main verb, the imperfective is used. (147) Those taken from the perfective are only for future time, chiefly when the action precedes that of the main clause. No examples are given in English (148) for either of the above. Finally, the past participle, equally foreign to conversations, is formed from the infinitive stem of the perfective. It is used with perfective verbs to express an action prior to that of the verb in the main clause.
As a final comment, Czech has attenuative verbs . 
For those who understand German, and the old Frakturschrift, the linked article may be of interest: Kurzgefasste Grammatik der Böhmischen Sprache , (as of page 31), or Praktische Grammatik zur leichten und schnellen Erlernung der böhmischen Sprache , pp. 60-76.
Macedonian is included here for the purposes of completeness. By law, it has only existed as a language since 1944.The first source makes the significant statement that it does not go into the question of “whether the members of aspectual pairs have identical lexical meaning in all cases”. (The rest of the on-line book cannot be accessed.) Noteworthy is that Bulgaria apparently did not recognize Macedonian as a distinct language until 1999.
Original Caption:Dragon, Krakow, Poland This photo was taken from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/petereed/128053588/ License: Some rights reserved by Pete Reed Image symbolic of the struggle to learn aspects?
The material in this section is taken from: Teach Yourself Polish. M. Corbridge-Patkaniowska. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960.
The author begins the introduction to the concept of aspect by emphasizing the the use of the past tense is very different in Polish and in English. It is mentioned that the only thing the speaker is concerned about, is whether the action is finished and completed, and in consequence, whether the objective was achieved, or a result produced, or if the action remained unfinished, “was only in the course of being performed, the fact of its having been performed being important and not the outcome which remains unspecified and unknown.” Finished actions use the perfective, unfinished the imperfective.(99) The imperfective may also be a repeated or habitual action, in which case it is often accompanied by adverbs (which are translations for) usually, always, or often (what is taught in English as adverbs of frequency), or adverbial expressions such as for some time, every week. (Cf. the section on Croatian) The author then, unnecessarily, it would seem, defines habitual actions, but the emphasis that “used to do something” is often expressed in English by the simple past does make the point worth emphasizing. Perhaps confusingly, without an example being provided, is that “the Polish imperfect past tense, i.e., the past tense formed from an imperfective verb, corresponds to the English progressive form, past tense.” (100) This wording is rather unorthodox. A good point is made in that it is the imperative of the perfective verb which is used to give a warning, order, or request referring to a “specific instance or moment of the action (this time, this once).” (102-3) But if the order applies to every time the action is to be performed, the imperfective is used. Looking at this book has helped the present author understand why negative sentences are used with the imperfective, because “not”, refers to “every time”, a permanent situation. Unfortunately, it is said that it usually goes with “nie“, and “usually” complicates the issue. On the other hand, if this includes the English adverb of frequency “never” in that “do not” could sometimes mean “never”, our rule is not violated as regards the imperfective.
The author later presents iterative, or frequentative verbs as a species of imperfective(213) which put special stress on repetition, “without consideration of its completion, non-completion, or duration, as in the perfective and imperfective aspects”. Then there is a “small group of verbs which express an action” done only once, the semelfactive verbs, which are always perfective. (216) Examples given are the translations for verbs of a quick movement, “to give a kick”, a sudden sound, e.g., “to cry out”, “to utter a groan”, or a flash of light, i.e. the verb “to flash”. One of these examples reinforces this author’s prior meditations on why the English should not be focusing on progressive and perfect as aspects. (More on that later!)
A German text with all the blackletter and grammar of the 18th century, found at Oxford University, gives some insights into the terminology of that time. It categorically states that almost every verb has two tenses, expressed in two “Formas“, specifically, forma simplex, which expresses a simple act or state; or a short action and completion, and the forma frequentiva, dealing with longer-lasting actions, a continuation, progress, or habit. That author, Monetá (see Bibliography), has therefore lumped many concepts together.
Original Caption: Dubrovnik A city in Croatia. This photo was taken from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/routard05/5029496844/ License: Some rights reserved by Routard05
The material in this section is taken from: Colloquial Serbo-Croat, Celia Hawkesworth. London: Routledge, 1986.
This book deals primarily with the Western,ekavski,(xviii) variant of the language, and it must be emphasized, that it is the spoken, not written word, which is under consideration, hence, a certain level of informality is being taught.
The imperfective is used for continuing, “ongoing”, or incompleted actions, while the perfective is used for completed or limited actions. (13) The latter idea is not developed to this reviewer’s satisfaction, and worse, there is an apples-and-oranges comparison, in that the imperfective is presented to the reader with a verb, the perfective is presented through the noun created from its action word. The examples of perfective verbs are better presented with a comment on the text of Unit Two: supposing a question were asked about drinking or smoking, to which the activity of eating might well be added, and then a further question might follow – as it were – is the speaker interested in the smoke being finished, the glass being drained, or the repast having been followed by a postprandial? Many pages later (196), pairs of contrasting sentences try to show the two aspects: the imperfective now being presented as “open-ended”, while, the perfective is again presented as a completed action. The sentence pairs led to the creation of the following on the part of the present writer, in line with his previous reflections on thequestion:
The pet dog was eating from the dish, but the hungry wolf had already eaten up the roadkill on the other side of the house.
The above example better shows what was meant by “limited”, now called a finite action, whether in the past, present, or future. (“Finite”, from Latin finire, means “finished”.) Another way of looking at the action of the verb suggests that the student choose whichever word is preferred to understand the perfective, while keeping his or her mind open to what might be exceptions to the rule. In the example above, the wolf had finished is meal, the dog had not, hence the sentence would use different aspects in its two clauses.
A few pages later, the text under consideration explains that the subject is “large and complex”, and that only “one or two features” can be handled therein. It considers it best to start by looking at the perfective, the function of which is to define a single, finite action, whichcannotbe divided into phases (202). The example now given refers to the totality of the action, not to its beginning, middle, or end – in spite of which, examples have been seen which treat this situation otherwise, by ignoring the beginning yes, but always considering the end. (A convenient website will illustrate this point better in the future). On the next page, the imperfective is then defined as being vague, as consisting of activities which are gradual, repeated, or general. These last two, in the interpretation of the present author, can be compared to the simple present in English, when used for adverbs of frequency, or when such a frequency is understood as happening:
The sun rises in the East. This is a rather trite example of a repeated action.
Grenades incapacitate the enemy: This is a general sentence, it is what that anti-personnel device is always meant to do, “always” being an adverb of frequency.
The author now almost repeats himself, saying that the action of the imperfective aspect is “impressionistic and vague”, “not conceived as an indivisible total”, or “action which was not actually brought to completion”. Nevertheless, one of the examples the author gives can be quite important, in that it is seen that a sentence with a perfect tense in English does not necessarily have anything to do with the perfective. The illustration of the idea begins with the words, “He had been thinking about …”, but the reader is left wondering if any conclusion was made about those ruminations.
The most interesting feature, for the argument to be developed later about how to view aspect in English, suggests that certain verbs in English can be a clue to the aspect to be used in Serbo-Croatian. Cautiously, this page submits the list, but future analysis may have to be made:
Imperfective: rest, sleep, listen, walk, study, talk.
Perfective:say, learn (not study), switch on, catch sight of, glance. The phrasal verbs practically apply to an instantaneous action, and “glance” is similar. “Say” and “learn” might be harder to analyze, but the explanation was discovered in the sources for Russian. (Examples from page 204)
Sense impressions such as “see” and “hear” (205) are presented as requiring the imperfective when there is a gerund construction in English, “Kako” + present, but if the construction is participial, it would be perfective. If the student is under the strong impression that in English, verbs of sense perception are not, under normal circumstances, to be used in the continuous or progressive form, it may be asked it the rule extends to “feel”, “smell”, “taste”, “understand”, etc. It would seem that a sense perception could also happen up to the moment of its cessation.
“Infinitive constructions … tend to indicate the PERFECTIVE”. The word “tend” does not exactly create 100% confidence.
More clearly, progressive tenses are translated by the imperfective (205)
A further set of clues are adverbs and conjunctions. For the imperfective, the examples given are: constantly, all the time, regularly, a long time, all day long. These might be understood in terms of Hawkewsworth’s previously mentioned “gradual, repeated, or general” rule.
It might be said that the adverbial expressions which suggest the perfective are those, which could easily induce an author to complete his sentence with an explanation mark. Unfortunately, the only example Hawkesbury gives is one, that calls attention to the fact that sometimes, if the verb itself refers to on-going action, the perfective cannot be used. We might add here, that this holds, even if an explanation mark could still be added. Here is an example created for the present article:
The hero reached the stricken victim in one bound.
In a comic book, the explanation mark would probably be appended. At any rate, the bound was completed, the victim was reached. The action is completed, not ongoing.
Rather uselessly, the student is then told that some conjunctions use either the perfective or the imperfective (205). The example given is “when”, although the author could have simplified his presentation by saying that if “when” means “whenever”, then the imperfective is used, for which purpose, we have created this example:
Shoes must be taken off, when entering a mosque, or the home of a Buddhist.
She fainted when she saw blood seeping from the wound.
Knowing that the other meaning of “when” is “as soon as” helps us understand why the latter example was put in the perfective group, since “whenever” was already routed into the imperfective category. That leaves the example of “while” for imperfective, but that is a duration of time – to reword one of the adverbial phrases, “all the time during which”. (206)
To modify a couple of sentences with time expressions with “for” and “in”:
He ate (the) pizza for/in an hour.
According to the author, “for” tends to emphasize the on-going action, and thus requires the imperfective, while “in” refers to finished action, hence the perfective is needed. Known to students of classical Greek, the author also suggests the need for a fleeting familiarity with the Aorist, which is a form of perfective, which, may be defined as the form of the verb for an action which is “instantaneous, single, and finished”.  Hawkesworth’s first reference to the Aorist is for the auxiliary of “biti” used to form the conditional. Why an English sentence such as “He would be living eternally in Hades, if the devil got his way” could be considered “finished” is beyond the scope of this article, but the good news is, the only other form considered essential is that of “say”, for reported speech. In, “He said, …”, the application of the definition for this special form of the perfective is obvious.
Any definitions that Hawkesbury has given, which apply to all Slavic languages, or which could be found in other works on Croatian, obviously do not constitute original information on his part. It is felt, however, that in an effort to say something original, his style has involved certain redundancies, and obfuscations. The printer’s ink lavished on those could he been better used in improved editing, but the information given, such as it is, is reasonably copious for a book not dedicated to the formal version of the language.
From an old German book, written in Fraktur, one gets the comment that the traditional division of verbs into Transitive and Intransitive is useless, concepts of perfectiva and imperfectiva are needed . (xlix [sic] l – l, intro. by Jacob Grimm, Cassel, 1824). (The following examples from the text may be obsolete, unreliable or incorrect as to the perfective and imperfective forms. It is given, with modern spellings, for information purposes only.) The definition of perfectives here is: a verb which expresses that an action takes place, or will take place only once, examples given are the Serbian translations of: bury: закопаши, write down : записати, (spelt записаши in the text), come: доћи, say : рећи, this verb, supposedly cry out : викнуши, raise : дигнути (spelt дигнуши in the text), place, perch : метнути (translated as lay down, sit, and spelt мешнуши), die : умријети (spelt умријеши) and exhale (Serbian form could not be confirmed). The imperfective deal with action that is still in progress, and the examples given are: bury : копати (ш >т), bury : закопанаши (unsubstantiated), write : писати (ш >т), write down :записивати(ш >т), come: долазиши, find: налазити(ш >т), an uncofirmed form of “look for”, give : давати (ш >т), speak: говорити (ш >т), shout: викати (ш >т), lift : дизати (ш >т), an unconfirmed form for “lay”, be dying : умирати (ш >т), and sigh : уздисати (ш >т). (64). While these two lists largely were written to contrast, with exceptions, the same verbs, the form in which they were presented allow for no conclusions.
Those readers who are familiar with both the German language and the old Blackletter or Frakturschrift can directly access an old text by Kašpar Dianiška on line , with the caveat that the language may have changed since then. Due to the old nature of the source, spellings have changed in the last 160 years. While the present author can handle the old German, he does not have the resources to decipher all the old Slovak words. In the following, for the benefit of those who cannot read the original text, a partial translation is given of the pages cited. Single word translations are given where possible, phrases have been ignored.
Slovak verbs can express, through the various forms (durative, finitive, frequentive) in which they appear, either a shorter or longer duration of action; or a one-time or more-oft-timeoccurringact, and in this regard, there are punctual (einzelne), terminative, constant (dauernde), repetitive , and frequentative (veröfternde) verbs.
1. The punctual verbs show an action which is momentary, and therefore do not exist in the present, as the action has instantaneously gone (166). (Compare the definition, in mathematics, for the root of “punctual”, “point”: it has not dimensions – PKM.) Examples are the Slovak equivalents for “shoot” and “shout out” (ausschreien).
2. The terminative verbs (finitive Form) show a momentary action which occurs quickly, and which will terminate completely (völlig vollendet … wird) or has terminated. These, as the punctual verbs, also lack a present tense, but may be differentiated through their formation from a durative or punctual verb, (recognized in German through prefixed verb forms – PKM). Examples are (theaforementioned “beat up”, viplakať sa (“cry oneself out”, modern spelling: vyplakať sa), zastreliť (shoot at some target), zapisať (register, enroll).
3. The durative Verbs are those which deal with a momentary action which either lasts, or can last, for a longer period to time, such as ležať (lie, recline), wash, plakať (cry), pisať (note that these last two are unsuffixed forms of words already mentioned), kopať (dig). Duratives can be transmuted into terminatives through a preceding word, or prefix (translation to be confirmed, an automatic translator was used for these results) such as do piť (drink up), do učiť (learn by heart), urobiť (accomplish), and virostnúť (“grow out”, not confirmed).
4. The repetitive verbs, describing self-evident actions, are formed from the momentary and the terminative verbs, for example, pichať orbodať (be busy piercing), rozpúšťať (dissolve, disband, etc., from rospustiť, current spelling rozpustiť).
5. The frequentatives deal with repetition, are formed with the infix “va” before the final syllable, and are translated by “be used to” (German: pflegen), for example, from chodiť, one form schodievať (walk repeatedly), písávať from previously seen písať. Humoristically, this infix is duplicated, suggesting a not very common repetition, e.g., volať, (call) begets volávávať (not found), in addition to the usual volávať (with a possible translation of “to have called”, but this lacks any necessary indication of repetition).
Now the text comes to what one really wants to know: that the momentary verbs and the terminative verbs are also known as perfect(ive) verbs, and the others, imperfect(ive). A perfective verb is recognized by the fact that it has no present, and that its future cannot be constructed with the auxiliary budem.
This phenomenon, which exists only in the Slavic verbs, is the ornament of the Slavonic languages. … (pages 166-167)
The past tense is either perfective, (perfectum finitivum), which deals with a completed deed which hashappened, or the imperfective (perfectum durativum), which is about incompleted long-lasting actions (lang dauernde Handlung).
Actions which happened long ago (längstvergangene Zeit) also have two natures, the perfective (plusquamperfectum finitivum), indicates that the action happened way in the past, while in the imperfective (plusquamperfectum durativum) shows that an action that began long ago has still not ended. Unfortunately, the same Slovak example is shown for both, “bol chital“, (bol chytal in modern spelling) (page 168).
The future is also perfective or imperfective. The former, futurum finitivum seu exactum, deals with action which will certainly be completed. The futurum durativum seu periphrasticum indicates an action which either has not ended yet, or will last a long time.
German has this difference only in theory. (This is because of the use of an informal past tense for the correct version, examples given, of how one substitutes “habe eingeschrieben” for “schriebe ein“, that is, the use of the perfect for the imperfect past form). In the Slavic languages, a four-year old already masters all the forms (of the verb). In Hungarian, one finds the distinction made more clearly than in German. (Page 169).
Slovenian is no exception to the use of aspects. The first document to be seen on this language includes some new vocabulary, which is worth noting: for the perfective, it must be considered whether a verb is individuated, or seen as a whole, while for the imperfective, where previously the current article has used the phrase, “process of an action”, the technical term “processual” has been encountered (79). An interesting definition is that when a process is de-emphasized in favour of the totality of an action, “even with overlapping or simultaneous events”, the perfective can be used in the present tense. More noteworthy even is the next paragraph, “Another unexpected use of the P[er]F[ective] in the present, from a broader Slavic perspective, is the directional perfective, which is often used in texts describing the scanning of landscapes.” (81) Furthermore, there are performatives: verbs describing an event coexisting with the moment of its being spoken, such as “swear”. These tend to occur with the perfective, though on more or less official occasions, the imperfective is used (81). Many verbs are bi-aspectual, context gives the true meaning (82). Immediately following this, on the same page, verbs of motion are considered. 
A more traditional presentation, in simple form, is found on a University of Hamburg website. 
For an older version of the language, written in German blackletter (Frakturschrift), in a Chapter of a book by Anton Johann Murko, “Besondere Einteilung der slowenischen Zeitwörter: Perfectiva u. Imperfectiva” An approximate translation of his essential ideas is this: “In consideration of its duration, an action can be viewed in two ways: unique, and completed; or lasting for a certain period of time. States can also be of two types: momentary, and disappearing immediately, or lasting for a longer period of time. This twofold difference of the actions and states forms the basis of the special division of the Slovenian verbs in perfectives and imperfectives. The further description offers nothing new, except a ranking of the difficulty of translating aspect into West European languages: easiest into Greek and Latin, less easily into French and Italian, and last easily into German.
Although speakers of Sorbian represent only about 1 per cent of the total speakers, a certain peculiarity of the language gives it a special importance to the present article, namely, it stands as a sort of bridge between the other Slavic languages and German. Influence of the latter language was noted as early as the 18th Century (Brijnen, 67). It appears that, in spite of the few speakers of the language, there are two main versions, Upper and Lower Sorbian, and that a transitional form exists (ibid.) The Upper Sorbian version has a total of 4 past tenses, including an Aorist formed from the Perfective, the perfect, and the pluperfect (ibid.) The present and future are described in the standard terms found elsewhere on this page. This description, however, is not matched by the language one hears, for example, of the past forms, only the perfect remains in Lower Sorbian, most of Upper Sorbian, and the Slěpe dialect (68). It is claimed that the analytic future, formed from the perfective verb (in addition to that formed from the imperfective, which is the standard procedure in all the Slavic languages mentioned in the present article), is the result of German influence.(68). If the action word implies starting, finishing, or continuing, must be combined with an imperfective infinitive. In the past, the progressive is used for successive actions. The peculiarity which the Brijnen article deals with is the use of directional adverbs, in place of the traditional prefixed verbs of motion, and this is attributed to the German language. (All material not taken from page 67 is from page 68).
As a comment, it can be said that there are German verbs which work in a similar way, in that some are prefixed – permanently, while others have separable prefixes, which work as adverbs. As an example, there is überfahren: “to run over (with a vehicle)” has an inseparable prefix, but in the sense of “to bring someone to the other side”, the prefix is separated when necessary.
For those who can read the German of the 19th Century, there is a brief exposé in Curt von Bose,
Wendisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch nach dem oberlausitzer Dialekte . The grammatical analysis is similar to that which has been seen for the old texts in German for Slovak. Von Bose waxes eloquent about the language, saying that, in addition to its idiomatic richness, its softness approaches that of the Italian. More to the point, the classes of verbs are the punctual, the durative, the iterative, the frequentative, the inchoative, and two interesting ones, as not fitting anywhere else into the standard scheme, the diminutive, and the so-called factitivum (xvii). The latter describes aconditionbrought about through a certain action, or the action itself. No specific mention of perfectives or imperfectives is made, but the inference of their existence can be made through the terminology which the author employed.
Another old and not detailed work is Slovennska grammatika; wendische Sprachlehre in deutsch und wendischen Vortrag , from around page 111. Again, this is from the 19th Century, with all its concomitant difficulties. The required vocabulary exceeds the capacity of the web translators. Nevertheless, it does mention in the section on types of verb that there are those which express the action outright (glatterdings), which predicts (unverbundenerweise her..sagt), or which indicates indeterminately (unbestimmterweise an…deutet). All this was reduced to a single sentence (#5, page 112), and is thus excessively simple. To learn the old language, there was a Low Lusation Wendish – German dictionary printed in 1847, which clearly showed which verbs were, according to the list of abbreviations, and the terminology relevant to this present article – absolutum, or punctual, durative, and iterative. A simple grammar, printed a bit earlier, gives the same list as von Bose, with some new (Latin) names: momentea (punctual), durative, frequentative, iterative, inchoative, factitive – which means “making” something, either, for example, as a profession (doctor, carpenter), or a state, e.g. “make cold”. In no case does the word “make” need to be included, e.g. “harden” : make hard. – and the deminutiva, supposedly rare, and used only in childish or humorous speech (44-5). After much reflection, this author has come to the some terms in English, such as “drinkie” and “wakie”, with the possible inclusion of “lookie”, but not according to the supposed etymology. The word “smirkle” is given as a diminutive of “smile” or “smirk”. A more common word that comes to mind is “sparkle” : “to emit little sparks, as of a sparkler firework”.
Original Caption:Main train station in Odessa, Ukraine 2010 This photo was taken from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sugarmeloncom/4986318551/ License Some rights reserved by Dieter Zirnig of sugarmelon.com
The only hard-copy material for Ukrainian in the author’s collection, published by a no-longer existing branch of a university, was destined for speakers of Spanish. The literal translations, into English, of the terminology, is a bit unorthodox, and may be questioned. This is not so much as in the case of the discussion of the future tense, which consists, one is told, of two forms, the analytic and the synthetic, that is, a form with an auxiliary, which as in most cases here, is the verb “to be”, and another form which is dependent upon verb endings (p. 113.) At first glance, this would seem to be the same as in Russian, for example, in fact, as one reads it, both are formed from the same “infinitive of the principal verb”. (113) Upon arriving to the description of what is not called aspect, one reads that there may actions either bounded by time or finished, and on the other hand, actions which have no reference at all to having terminated. These, respectively, are called “imperfect”, which, in regards to expression of the process of action, to not refer to completion; and the “perfect”, which refers to a completed action, or the “obtainment of a defined result”. (120) As usually, there is no present “perfect”. This use of the terms “perfect” and “imperfect” is not justified for two reasons, it causes confusion with verb tenses in other languages, such as the present perfect of English; moreover, the Potapova book on Russian (q.v.), also in Spanish, does use exact translations of the terms “perfective” and “imperfective”.
Understanding the Perfective Aspect vs. the Imperfective
It has already been stated that to consider the progressive and perfect forms of verbs of the English language as aspects is not useful to those whose education is in that tongue. Should they know the terms, they would be confused anyway, as soon as they tried to understand anything in Slavic languages. On the other hand, if the terms were not known, nothing would be lost. So, the question is, how can the problem be approached, other than by talking about some vague psychological point of view? In the first place, English sometimes uses vagueness vs. precision in a situation a bit different from what has been discussed here, but if it would help the student, why not give the comparison? It is the difference between: “The secretary is at the office.” vs. “The secretary is in the office”. “In” leaves us with no doubt as to the exact location, “at” only gives us a general view: Who knows whether the secretary is on the elevator, at the front door, or in the stairwell of the office building? The mind needs to adapt itself to thinking in similar terms about verbs.
The secret is to consider, whether there are de facto pairs of verbs in English, which express ideas similar to those found in Russian. This writer believes they exist, but authority often frowns upon them. Doctoral candidates or above, might consider the GMAT or GRE test prohibition against certain constructions, such as “clean up” or “eat up”. This ignores that the “up” component, in our example, has a function, and it is not redundancy, or some substandard English which is at play, as the authors of the GMAT study material would have one believe. In the little time for this version of the present article, we offer a few examples.
The child wasn’t hungry, but ate. The wolf was hungry, and ate up the remains.
It is claimed that soldiers kill without wanting. The atomic bomb killed off everything within its orbit.
The father beat his son for the transgression. The hooligan beat up the passerby.
In the first column, simple sentence are expressed in what might be called the imperfective aspect, at least, this is the one that should be used in translation. The second column would use the perfective. Let us compare the different shades in meaning.
In the first pair of sentences, a child not suffering from any pangs of hunger eats. The context makes reasonably clear that the plate was probably not fully clean, and that remnants of food remain. The wolf, on the other hand, through the very words “ate up”, didn’t waste any morsels of food. With “to eat up”, it is not even necessary to specify anything about hunger, it is even appropriate for cases of gluttony, or as a show of appreciation of tasty food, i.e., nothing is to be left (well, with the glutton, it might depend!)
In the second pair of sentences, we consider the possibility that bullets are wasted in war because some unhardened soldiers merely fired their guns out of duty. (This contention is somewhere on the internet). In the second sentence of the pair, we leave no doubt about the number of survivors.)
In the third pair of sentences, a father metes out punishment to his son. It may be supposed that this is by caning, belting, paddling, or similar. The hooligan, however, lands blows in a less disciplined way, and for effects even less pleasant for the person on the receiving end. The hypothetical passerby, by being “beaten up”, is in a bad state. The son, though, has no such problems – in theory, he can continue his normal affairs.
It is believed that the above schema is the correct way to understand the application of aspect to the Slavic languages. The books which have been cited give other clues, insofar as they do not apply to verbs in English, they need trouble the student only in the language which needs to be learnt.
It is possible to go further. Based on the available information, how can the aspects be visualized? The following diagram offers some clues :
Aspectual Chart for English and the Slavic Languages
Below, the above chart has been manipulated for more detail. If it is not seen correctly, screen resolution will need to be adjusted. First, English:
Here, more visible, is the part for the Slavic languages:
If someone was brought up with English grammar, without the study of aspect, verb tenses need to be looked at in a new way. The above chart shows that English has absolutely nothing in common with the Slavic languages. If the concept of aspect is possible in English, one might consider that the Pluperfect connects (therefore an electrical outlet) to another event in the past, the Past Perfect connects to the Present, the Future Perfect can connect either to the Present, or another event in the Future. To illustrate the progressive, (or, continuous), a wavy line is shown, for all 3 verb tenses. The two parts of the graph for English show no clear connection between the so-called aspects. It is to be noted that in the English language, according to the sources cited in this text, the simple present, past, and future, have no place on either side of the aspect divide, (they would be one the black line itself). The concept is this:
MODERN VERB DESCRIPTION = ASPECT TYPE + ASPECT TYPE (IF ANY) + (SIMPLE) VERB TENSE.
The aspect type is repeated, because of the existence of the perfect continuous (perfect progressive).
The Slavic languages, on the other hand, allow aspect to be drawn in such a way that the idea of its two aspects are clearly marked. The top part, perfective, illustrates that there is no present tense in the perfective (exceptions ignored). The past and the future are completed boxes, withlimited boundaries. Their form is “perfect”. The imperfective, on the other hand, shows that the outlines are not perfect, or that an ongoing action takes place within the defined time frame. The ideas of Weigand (in the Bulgarian section of this article) could be incorporated, but that would clutter up the chart. Yet, this time the wavy line does not indicate a progressive verb tense, as understood in English, rather, the concern is whether the action is ongoing, as far as the speaker or writer is concerned. The concept, which needs to include the simpler grammar of Russian verbs with the more complicated version of Bulgarian, might be illustrated like this:
VERB DESCRIPTION = [verb tense], the square brackets define the aspect in which the verb tense is found, where the present cannot be found within the perfective. Of course, the problem is to know which aspect is to be used.
One conclusion is that when aspect is considered in English, the verb tense is separate to it, while in the Slavic languages, the verb is like a prisoner to its aspect. The other conclusion is that looking at aspect in English is unnecessary for its comprehension in Slavic languages, unless it needs to be temporarily blocked from one’s mind.
Something which might not be immediately obvious is how an entire series of verb forms could exist to express different shades of the aspects, from momentary to repetitive, attenuative to intensive, etc. Clues exist throughout this article, but some theoretical consideration can be given to the topic. It has been seen that a verb may be, in some case, without an aspectual pair, or bi-aspectual. An aspectual pair can be a completely different word, or formed from the imperfective by adding a prefix, a suffix, and further differentiated through an infix. How many possibilities does this give us, as aminimum, for aspectual pairs? Let “impverb” represent a verb in the imperfective aspect. Then, with prefixes, infixes, and suffixes, the following shows the perfective forms which can be derived:
IMPVERB – > PERNEW (underived perfective); PERFVERB (derived form);
preIMPVERB (prefixed perfective form)
IMPVERBate (suffixed perfective form): IMPINVERB (infixed perfective form)
The above gives a total of five basic forms, but if we add prefixes, suffixes, and infixes to the derived form, there are 3 more, and more theoretical forms than would ever be needed can be represented. Neither should it be forgotten that at times, an imperfective form is derived from the perfective.
Leaving aside the theoretical discussion, it may be said, that in general, the words explaining perfective and imperfective, for the most part recur with such a frequency, that any deviation from the norm is an attempt by an author to be original, or to write for a more sophisticated audience. One could take a thesaurus, find lists of related words, and these are the words found in the sources quoted in this article. As an example, under the heading of “Completeness”, the Roget’s Thesaurus of 1868 gives the following words, all found above in their past participle versions: complete, perfect, and finished. From the Webster’s New World Thesaurus, Warner Books, 1990), concluded, terminated, and ended can be added, but these words also are found in the just-cited Thesaurus, under Completion, in the category of “Results of Voluntary Actions”. On the opposite column, one can find the vocabulary for the antonym.
By using the ideas presented in the previous paragraph, a certain amount of vocabulary has been found to be repeated so often by various authors, that it may be concluded that the following vocabulary on the perfective and imperfective is so common as not to require footnoting.
For the Imperfective aspect, the following groups of adjectives, adverbs, or nouns which would be followed by the word “of”, describe the action or state of the verbs involved: (1) continuing, continuous, continuum, (2) duration, durative, (3) frequency, frequentative, (4) habit, habitual, habitually, (5) incomplete, incompleted, incompletedness, uncomplete, not completed, and (6) repeated, repeating,repetition, repetitive, and the synonym, recurrent. Furthermore, negative imperatives are of the imperfect aspect. The vocabulary of the groups is such that it applies at least twice to either Russian on non-Russian Slavic languages, with a total minimum occurrence of 4 for the combined Slavic languages.
Using the same criteria, the common vocabulary for the Perfective are the groups: (1) complete, completed, completion, occurring 8 times for both Russian and the other Slavic languages, giving 16 instances; and (2) terminated, termination, terminative, with 1 and 3 instances,respectively. (Other synonymous terms, usually occurring once or twice, will be considered for future updates).
Some Bibliographic Sources (Width Limited by Scanner).
Books not dealing with Greek also deal with aspect in general.
Betts, Gavin, and Henry, Alan .Ancient Greek: A Complete Course. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton, 1989, 26.
Hudson, D. F.New Testament Greek. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960, 47.
Stambolieva, Maria. Building up Aspect: A Study of Aspect and Related Categories in Bulgarian, with Parallels in English and French. Bern: Peter Lang, AG, 2008. <http://books.google.com/books?id=LcsCachJe0AC&source=gbs_navlinks_s>.passim. Acc.: 20120110.
Thelin, Nils B., ed. Verbal Aspect in Discourse: Contributions to the Semantics of Time and Temporal Perspective in Slavic and Non-slavic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990.
Wallace, Daniel B.Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996),<http://books.google.com/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&dq=inceptive+imperfect+beginning&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. 544, 554-565 (563-4 not visible). Acc. 20120110.
Bécourt, Marie-François, et Borzic, Jean. Le russe en 90 leçons et en 90 jours, (Livre de Poche), Librairie Générale Français, 1977.
Berneker, Erich, und Vasmer, Max. Russische Grammatik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1947.
Corbridge-Patkaniowska,M. Teach Yourself Polish. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960.
Cosson, Yves-Marie, et. al. Communiquez en russe. France: Presses Pocket, 1992.
Crystal, David . An Encylopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994.
Daum, E., and Schenk, W. A Dictionary of Russian Verbs. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1974.
Fourman, Maximilian.TeachYourself Russian. London: The English University Press, 1943.
Fuchs, Paul, und von Bubnoff, Nicolai. Russische Konversations-Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos, 1938. Frewin, Michael. Teach Yourself Russian. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton, 1977.
Grebe, Paul,et al. “Die Aktionsarten des Verbs”. in Duden Grammatik, 3. Auflage. Mannheim: Dudenverlag, 1973, 65.
Hawkesworth, Celia. Colloquial Serbo-Croat. London: Routledge, 1986.
Hendricks, P. The Radožda-Vevčani Dialect of Macedonian. (Amsterdam: Peter de Ridder Press. 1976). <http://books.google.com/books?id=LLKqzok7SKAC&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.: 20111229.
Jacobs, Roderick A. “Understanding Aspect” in English Syntax: A Grammar for English Language Professionals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Lee, W.R. and Z.Czech. New York: David McKay;London: The English University Press, 1959.
Lönneker-Rodman, Birte. Der Verbalaspekt im Slowenischen (Einführung) in Online SLO-DE-SLO V2: <http://webapp6.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/slowenisch/grammatik/de/aspekt.shtml>. 20.01.2007. Acc.; 20111229.
Maltzoff, Nicholas. “Verbs”. in: Essentials of Russian Grammar. Lincolnwood, Ill.: Passport Books (NTC), 1984.
Marchant, Chris. Fundamentals of Modern Belarusian. (pdf file). http://pravapis.org/fundamental_belarusian.pdf>. Acc.: 20111216.
Murko, Anton Johann. Theoretisch-practische Grammatik der slowenischen Sprache in Steiermark, Kärnten, Krain und dem illyrischen Küstenlande. 2. Auflage. Grätz: Fr. Ferstl’schen Buchhandlung, 1843. Ss. 72-9. <http://books.google.com/books?id=UehJAAAAcAAJ&dq=slowenisch+verb&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.20111229.
Orschel, Hans, und / andSwobodin, J. W..30 Stunden Russich für Anfänger, 12. Auflage. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1952.
Papantchev, George D. Colloquial Bulgarian. London: Routledge, 1994.
Potapova, Nina. Manual breve de lengua rusa. Moscow (Moscú): Ediciones en lenguas extranjeras, 1958.
Quirk, Randolph, et. al.A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman, 1972. 90-7.
Quirk, Randolph, et. al.. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow, (Essex, England). 1985. 188-213.
Stannard Allen, W. “Notes on English Tenses”. Living English Structure: Practice Book for Foreign Students, 4th ed. London: Longman, 1959. 80-3.
Steinitz, Wolfgang. Russisch in 26 Lektionen. Humboldt Taschenbücher – Verlag Lebendiges Wissen, München (no date).
The Penguin Russian Course. J.L.I. Fennell, Compiler. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961.
Wasylyk, Miguel, et. al. Курс Українсьої Мори – Curso del idioma ucranio. Buenos Aires: Universidad Católica Ucrania “San Clemente Papa”, n.d.
West. Daphne M. TeachYourself Russian. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991.
Хубенова, Милка; и Джумаданова, Ана. Български език: втора част. Sofia: Народна Просвета, 1968.
Brijnen, Hélène. “German Influence on Sorbian Aspect: The Function of Directional Adverbs”. Languages in Contact. Ed. DickyGilbers, JohnNerbonne, and Jos Schaeken.Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2000. <http://books.google.com/books?id=QqQgBVXp_H4C&source=gbs_navlinks_s>.
Cebuský, Anton.Kurzgefasste Grammatik der Böhmischen Sprache. 3. Auflage. Wien: L. W. Seidel, 1854. <http://books.google.com/books?id=IQ0JAAAAQAAJ&dq=b%C3%B6hmische+Sprache&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.: 20111219.
Comrie, Bernard. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems.Cambridge University Press, 1976. <http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4FM00GAwlUC&hl=es&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc. 20111203.
Corre, Éric. De l’aspect sémantique à la structure de l’événement. Paris: Presse Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2009. <http://books.google.com/books?id=6fkcP4M7DBEC&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc. 20120104.
Cychun, Hienadź. Weißrussisch. In <http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Weiszrussisch.pdf>. Acc. 20111230.
Dianiška, Kašpar. Theoretisch praktische Grammatik zur schnellen Erlernung der slowakischen Sprache für Deutsche: Mit Gesprächen, Aufgaben und Lesestücken. Wien: Buchhandlung von Albert A. Wenedikt, 1850. <http://books.google.com/books?id=w749AAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.: 20111217.
Dickey, Stephan M., and Cresin, Susan C. Verbal Aspect and Negation in Russian and Czech. <http://hdl.handle.net/1808/5475>. University of Kansas, 2009. Acc.: 20111230.
Divjak, Dagmar and Kochańska, Agata . Cognitive Paths into the Slavic Domain. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007), 353.<http://books.google.com/books?id=5L2o6z3RPbYC&dq=attenuative+verb&source=gbs_navlinks_s>.Acc.: 20111223
Filip, Hana. Aspect, Eventuality Types, and Nominal Reference. Garland Series, 1999. <http://books.google.com/books?id=u-rDYQ6GRlsC&hl=es&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.: 20111214.
Greenberg,Marc L. A Short Reference Grammar of Standard Slovene. University of Kansas, 2006. <http://www.theslovenian.com/articles/2008/greenberg.pdf>. Acc.: 2011128.
Karlik, Hugo Johannes. “Formen und Wandlung der Verba”. Praktische Grammatik zur leichten und schnellen Erlernung der böhmischen Sprache. Prag: Rohliček & Sievers, 1863. <http://books.google.com/books?id=Y9kGAAAAQAAJ&hl=es&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. 60-76. Acc.: 20111219.
Korba, John Joseph. The Development of Overt Aspectual Marking among Russian Biaspectual Verbs. Diss. University of North Carolina , 2007. Chapel Hill. Web: <http://books.google.com/books?id=RwlTHaVBUE0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false>. Acc.: 20111217.
Monetá, Johann. Polnische Grammatik, anjetzt aber: zum gründlichen Unterricht der Schuljugend durch und durch umgearbeitet. 5. Auflage. Breslau: Johann Friedrich Korn dem Ältern, 1786.
Morse, F. C. A grammar of the Bulgarian language: with exercises and English and Bulgarian Vocabularies. (Constantinople: Galata, 1859.). <http://books.google.com/books?id=OZ8FAAAAQAAJ&dq=Bulgarian&source=gbs_navlinks_s>
Mlynarczyk, Anna Katarzyna. Aspectual Pairing in Polish. Universiteit Utrecht, 2004. <http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-0309-140804/inhoud.htm>. Acc.: 20111216.
Murko, Anton Johann. “Besondere Einteilung der slowenischen Zeitwörter: Perfectiva u. Imperfectiva in Steirmark, Kärnten, Krain, und dem illyrischen Küstenlande”. 2. Auflage. Grätz: Verlag der F. Ferstl’schen Buchhandlung, 1843. <http://books.google.com/books?id=UehJAAAAcAAJ&hl=es&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc. 20111229.
Nepomuk Konečný, Jan. Grammatik der böhmischen Sprache. 4. Auflage. Wien: Peter Rohrmann, 1852.<http://books.google.com/books?id=YfM9AAAAYAAJ&dq=b%C3%B6hmische+Sprache&source=gbs_navlinks_s>.Acc.; 20111219.
Raizen, Esther. Biblical Hebrew Grammar for Beginners. Universtiy of Texas at Austin. 2007-2009. <http://www.laits.utexas.edu/hebrew/heblang/bh/bhonline/grammar/aspect.pdf>. Acc.: 20120529.
Richardson, Kylie R. Case and Aspect in Slavic. Oxford University Press, 2007. Acc.: 20111216.
Seiler, Andreas. Kurzgefasste Grammatik der Sorben-Wendischen Sprache: nach dem Budissiner Dialekte. Budissin: K. A. F. Weller, 1830.<http://books.google.com/books?id=qpQTAQAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.: 20111221.
Sellenko, Georg. Slovennska grammatika oder Georg Sellenko’s wendische Sprachlehre in deutsch und wendischen Vortrag: Mittel welcher sowohl der Deutsche als der Wendische auf die leichteste Art diese Sprache regelrichtig zu reden und zu schreiben von selbsten erlernen kann. Zilli: Fr. Jos. Jenko’schen Schriften, 1791. <http://books.google.com/books?id=dsYGAAAAQAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.: 20111220.
Stephanowitch, Wuk.“Von dem Verbum” in Kleine Serbische Grammatik verdeutscht und mit einer Vorrede von Jacob Grimm. Leipzig: G. Reimer, 1824.<http://www.archive.org/details/wuksstephanowit02vategoog>. Acc.: 20111223.
Von Bose, Curt. Wendisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch nach dem oberlausitzer Dialekte. Grimma: J. M. Gebhardt, 1840.<http://books.google.com/books?id=tO4IAAAAQAAJ&dq=Wendische+Sparache&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.: 20111220.
Von Waldenfels, Ruprecht. Aspect of the imperative across Slavic Languages. Universität Bern (Berlin:1.10.2010). <http://lojze.lugos.si/~spela/ICLC2010-ParallelCorpora/ICLC2010-ParallelCorpora_files/TalkBerlinICLC6WS.pdf>. Acc.: 20120209.
Weigand, Gustav. Bulgarische Grammatik, 2. Auflage. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1917. <http://www.archive.org/details/bulgarischegramm00weiguoft>. Acc.: 20111222.
Zwahr, J. G.Niederlausitz-wendisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch. Spremberg: Karl Friedrich Sádisch, 1847. <http://books.google.com/books?id=08c9AAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Acc.: 20111221.