- Also the optional forms of the base klaj—‘fight’ belong to this group: n-p.1.s. kl—a:-m, 2.s. kl—a:-š, 3.p. klaj—i:, 2.past act. part, kla:–l, inf. kla:—t. The other forms are n-p.1.s. kol—u, etc. Both sets of forms are bookish.
- The forms without the consonant alternations are of secondary, analogical origin.
- Rubenstein uses the term ‘past tense.’ Since, however, the Czech past tense is a compound form, it is preferred here to use the term ‘second past active participle.’
- Any generalization about the conjugation of spoken Czech can be only partly successful. The morphology of the spoken language varies among various geographical areas and various social strata. The forms described here are those which the author considers as the most frequent ones in the language spoken by the intelligentsia and the middle class around Prague and in most of Bohemia, but only partly in Moravia.
- With the exception of the form vida, which has lost its participle meaning.
- In the analysis of the spoken language, the type of bases constructed for some verbs differs from the type of bases which was used by Rubenstein for the same verbs in the analysis of the literary language. This procedure was necessary in view of the different stem alternations of the spoken language. In the following analysis, bases ending in i:j are constructed for verbs ending in ij in the analysis of the literary language (e.g., ši:j—‘sew’, lit. šij—), while bases ending in ej are constructed for verbs with bases ending in i:j in the analysis of the literary language (e.g., klej—‘swear’, lit. kli:j—).
- For a large number of verbs, it is possible to use two sets of bases, both of which are applicable before the desinen ces of the non-past tense where the occurrence of optional forms is most frequent. This concerns bases ending in e, ej, bases ending in i, ej, and bases ending in a, aj. E.g., pro = xa:ze—and pro = xa:zej—‘stroll’ (lit. pro = xa:zej—), 3.s. pro = xa:z—i:, 3.p. pro = xa:z—i: and pro=xa:zej (lit. pro = xa:zej—i:); trpje—and trpjej—‘suffer’ (lit. trpje—), 3.p. trp—i: and trpjej (lit. trp—i:); večeře—and večeřej—(lit. id.) ‘supper’, 3.p. večeř—i: and večeřej (lit. večeř—i: and večeřej—i:); mluvi—and mluvjej—‘speak’ (lit. mluvi—), 3.p. mluv—i: and mluvjej (lit. mluv—i:); kašla—and kašlaj—‘cough’ (lit. id.), 3.s. kašl—e and kašl—a:, 3.p. kašl—ou and kašlaj (lit. kašl—ou and kašlaj—i:).
- However, the selection of base-forms is not entirely optional in the imperative, where usually only one base-form may be chosen. While, in general, the selection of the particular base-form before the desinences of the imperative is unpredictable in such cases where two base-forms are possible in the non-past tense, the following statements are applicable in most cases: a) If the stem contains a long vocalic phoneme, the longer baseform is applicable (bases ending in ej and aj respectively), b) If the stem contains a short vocalic phoneme, the shorter base-form is usually applicable; however, in several cases, both base-forms are possible, c) In cases where the two sets of base-forms in the non-past tense end in i, ej, only the bases ending in i are applicable in the imperative. E.g., ne = stři: lej—‘not to shoot’, imper. ne = stři:lej (however, n-p.3.p. ne = stř—i: and ne = stři:lej); ne = ha:zej—‘not to throw’, imper. ne = ha:zej; but večeře—‘supper’, imper. večeř; zmize—‘disappear’, imper. zmis; (exception is ne=vracej—‘not to return’, imper. ne = vracej); mluvi—'speak'—imper. mluf; mi:ři—'aim'—imper. miř; koupaj—se ‘bathe’, imper. koupej se; however, li:za—and li:zaj—‘lick’, imper. liš and li:zej; la:ma—and la:maj—‘break’, imper. lam and la:mej.
- The interesting problem of the development of the imperative in spoken Czech is treated in more detail in the study by Karel Rocher, “O vý'voji české konjugace,” Sborník filologický, 8, Part I, Prague, 1926.
WORD
Volume 8, 1952 - Issue 4: Slavic Word No. 1