![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bulgarian is supposed to have evidentiality (see [1] for one of the first hits Google turns up). This should be mentioned here. Which forms in the analysis given here are involved? 4pq1injbok ( talk) 01:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some kind of transcription (or transliteration) of the Bulgarian text in the examples and the tables? After all, this is an article in the English Wikipedia and the reader may, or may not be acquainted with the Cyrillic.
And wouldn't the bigger tables look neater if there weren't listed all the gender forms of the participles (with the fact that the participles do have different forms for the three genders in the singular possibly mentioned in a note after the table)? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Uanfala (
talk •
contribs)
10:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The article does not make clear what the difference is between (in)completive and (im)perfective. Also, it speaks of the "aorist" rather than the perfective, calls the perfect a "tense", and is not clear about which forms are simple aspect and which combinations of pfv and ipfv. All of these things are either inaccurate, misleading, or difficult to correlate with other WP articles. (Also, there are some fictitious tense/aspects promulgated by the Bulgarian govt which do not actually exist; I'd need to dig up some refs to see if they've been included here.) I'd make a stab at it, but would most likely just make things worse. — kwami ( talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The following information in the text is completely mixed up/wrong:
"The verbs are either of perfective (глаголи от несвършен вид) or imperfective (глаголи от свършен вид) aspect. The former describe actions in progress (uncompleted actions) and the latter whole completed actions (actions which have a beginning and an end)."
It should read the other way around, i.e. "The verbs are either of IMPERFECTIVE (глаголи от несвършен вид) or PERFECTIVE (глаголи от свършен вид) aspect. The former describe actions in progress (uncompleted actions) and the latter whole completed actions (actions which have a beginning and an end)." Lebensmuede ( talk) 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
First I'll start by saying I am a native Bulgarian speaker. When reading the article, I noticed that there is no example for secondary imperfective verb in the past aorist because it is said to be the same as in past imperfect. All forms but those for the 2d and 3d person singular are identical, yes. However my point is that using those two different forms I cannot think of any example that sounds right. My language sense tells me that the secondary imperfective verbs are not used in this tense (or at least not anymore). I want to ask if someone can find a proof for this in a grammar book and whether the other native speakers think like me. Xr 1 ( talk) 21:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently made an edit concerning this topic that was later changed. I'm going to revert to my version unless someone provides me a reason not to.
This is the edit in question.
There is a clear distinction between the unreduced and the reduced version of ъ. This is proven by the fact that native speakers sometimes mistake the reduced vowel for а (which sounds the same way while reduced) while the unreduced vowel is correctly identified as ъ. As a native speaker, I can clearly distinguish the unreduced and reduced versions of ъ. The former is usually identified as /ɤ/ and the latter - as /ɐ/. The same applies for у - while unreduced, it's pronounced as /u/ and while reduced - as /o/.
Martinkunev ( talk) 19:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bulgarian is supposed to have evidentiality (see [1] for one of the first hits Google turns up). This should be mentioned here. Which forms in the analysis given here are involved? 4pq1injbok ( talk) 01:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some kind of transcription (or transliteration) of the Bulgarian text in the examples and the tables? After all, this is an article in the English Wikipedia and the reader may, or may not be acquainted with the Cyrillic.
And wouldn't the bigger tables look neater if there weren't listed all the gender forms of the participles (with the fact that the participles do have different forms for the three genders in the singular possibly mentioned in a note after the table)? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Uanfala (
talk •
contribs)
10:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The article does not make clear what the difference is between (in)completive and (im)perfective. Also, it speaks of the "aorist" rather than the perfective, calls the perfect a "tense", and is not clear about which forms are simple aspect and which combinations of pfv and ipfv. All of these things are either inaccurate, misleading, or difficult to correlate with other WP articles. (Also, there are some fictitious tense/aspects promulgated by the Bulgarian govt which do not actually exist; I'd need to dig up some refs to see if they've been included here.) I'd make a stab at it, but would most likely just make things worse. — kwami ( talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The following information in the text is completely mixed up/wrong:
"The verbs are either of perfective (глаголи от несвършен вид) or imperfective (глаголи от свършен вид) aspect. The former describe actions in progress (uncompleted actions) and the latter whole completed actions (actions which have a beginning and an end)."
It should read the other way around, i.e. "The verbs are either of IMPERFECTIVE (глаголи от несвършен вид) or PERFECTIVE (глаголи от свършен вид) aspect. The former describe actions in progress (uncompleted actions) and the latter whole completed actions (actions which have a beginning and an end)." Lebensmuede ( talk) 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
First I'll start by saying I am a native Bulgarian speaker. When reading the article, I noticed that there is no example for secondary imperfective verb in the past aorist because it is said to be the same as in past imperfect. All forms but those for the 2d and 3d person singular are identical, yes. However my point is that using those two different forms I cannot think of any example that sounds right. My language sense tells me that the secondary imperfective verbs are not used in this tense (or at least not anymore). I want to ask if someone can find a proof for this in a grammar book and whether the other native speakers think like me. Xr 1 ( talk) 21:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently made an edit concerning this topic that was later changed. I'm going to revert to my version unless someone provides me a reason not to.
This is the edit in question.
There is a clear distinction between the unreduced and the reduced version of ъ. This is proven by the fact that native speakers sometimes mistake the reduced vowel for а (which sounds the same way while reduced) while the unreduced vowel is correctly identified as ъ. As a native speaker, I can clearly distinguish the unreduced and reduced versions of ъ. The former is usually identified as /ɤ/ and the latter - as /ɐ/. The same applies for у - while unreduced, it's pronounced as /u/ and while reduced - as /o/.
Martinkunev ( talk) 19:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)