It’s an interesting book, but I don’t recommend to the learners to read it - it’s useful only for the philologists for whom Russian is the profession.
We needn’t to know all these rules and exeptions for any real speaking how we needn’t to remember all irregular verbs for it.
It’s enough to know the main rule: We use Perfective Verbs if we speak about not repeated actions in the Past and in the Future. In all other cases we use Imperfective Verbs.
This rule covers 95% of the real Russian, and it is more than enough.
If somebody wants to know a bit more, you can use my lessons from the course “Практическая грамматика” in the Russian library of Lingq.com.
Спасибо Евгений.
Поскольку мы говорим об этом (совершенны и несовершенный вид глагола), я хотел кое-что у вас спросить: почему вы говорите “я смотрел этот фильм” или “я читал эту книгу”? Вы так говорите даже если вы смотрели этот фильм только один раз и действие уже законченное.
Я однажды сказал другу “я посмотрел этот фильм”, а он мне исправил и ответил что я неправильно сказал и надо говорить “я смотрел этот фильм”.
почему? мне до сих пор неизвестно
+Josu. I think it’s because you watched the film / read the book for an extended period of time. We, Latin-language speakers think about the perfect/imperfect difference in the past as equivalent to the difference between our own indefinite/imperfect tenses.
So, because in Spanish (similar in Catalan, Italian, French, Portuguese, …) we say
“Vi la película”, not “Veía la película” we tend to think Russian “should” use the perfect in these cases.
I think that analogy is correct: the general meaning of the difference in Latin languages and Slavic languages in this case is the same. However, actual use deviates in some instances. Probably, this is the most usual case:
Russian uses imperfect past to refer to actions that took an extended period of time, even when they’re not related to another, more punctual action.
In modern Latin languages we would only use the imperfect in this case if we referred to another action, such as in
“Veía la película y me llamaron al teléfono”. Here “watching the movie” acts as a background action within which another, more punctual one (“getting a call”) takes place
In contrast, Russian uses imperfect even when the second action is not mentioned.
Notice that even Latin used imperfect in some cases in which modern Latin-derived languages would use perfect, more in line with Russian use.
Для меня “я посмотрел этот фильм” = “я смотрел этот фильм”. Как сказал Евгений, глаголы совершенного вида используются реже, когда нужно подчеркнуть, что действие было сделано.
Классический пример использования на уроке в школе:
Учитель: - Ты делал домашнюю работу (ты читал эту книгу)?
Ученик: - Да, делал (читал).
Учитель: - Молодец, но ты сделал (прочитал)?
Ученик: - Нет, не до конца.
Ftorney has already answered quite right.
I could say tyhat botyh versions are right:
Я смотрел этот фильм - вы обращаете внимание на процесс, тем более, что это долгий процесс.
Я посмотрел этот фильм- вы обращаете внимание, что вы уже просмотрели этот фильм в прошлом - законченный факт.
Как в английском, мы часто имеем возможность использования разных вариантов:
I have already seen this film- Last week I saw this film - I was seeing this film from 3 to 5 o’clock.
Но в английском мы должны использовать также разные обстоятельства, а в русском достаточно наше восприятие как процесса или как результата.
Una forma de recordar esto es pensar que “Я смотрел фильм” significa “Estuve viendo una película”. Al igual que es más natural decir “Estoy viendo una película” que “veo una película” cuando estás a la mitad de ella, en ruso es más natural decir “estuve viendo una película”, “estuve leyendo un libro” que “vi una película”, “leí un libro”, porque la segunda expresión parece indicar que lo hiciste muy rápido sin permitir ninguna interrupción, sin que ocurriese absolutamente nada entre medias.
@Evgueny
You’re right, I think this PhD thesis would give learners an инфаркт…! 
As a fellow “grammarphile” to Jay, I find this conversation very interesting. Josu said that he has asked about this and never got an answer. Let me explain why I think this is the case and what the confusion may be all about. I think it’s instructive.
When Josu asks about this, Russian speakers try to explain what the difference is between perfect and imperfect. Sergei and Evgeny have done that. They did a very good job but I think that’s not what Josu’s asking. He’s not a beginner and he has a solid grasp of this issue by now. His question (I think) is something along these lines:
“So, perfect past shows that the action was completed to its end, imperfect that it lasted for some extended period. In that case, I’ve got a choice, I can use one or the other depending on what I have in mind. So, why do Russian speakers often object when I say “Я посмотрел фильм”? I did finish the film, didn’t I?”
The answer, I think, has to do with the linguistic concept of “markedness”. Let’s compare Spanish and Russian:
In Spanish you have a tense that emphasizes completeness (two in fact, but let’s simplify): “Vi una película” [perfect]; and another one that emphasizes duration “Veía una película” [imperfect].
Of the two, the perfect is unmarked, the imperfect is marked.
That means that speakers consider the expression equivalent to “I watched the movie to the end” [perfect] to be the normal, default action. You use it both when you want to emphasize the end (that would demand further elaboration) and when you’re not particularly interested in the completion, you just want to say “me watch (past) film”.
In contrast, imperfect is “marked”: you only use it when you want to stress the fact that it took some time to watch the film. Typically, when something out of normal or unexpected happened in the process (including, but not restricted to, circumstances that prevented you from reaching the end).
So, if in Spanish you say “Vi la película”, you mean “I watched the movie (incidentally, I watched it to the end, as it’s usual, no big deal, nothing more to add)” [unmarked], whereas if you say “Veía la película”, it’s correct and understandable but it’s construed by speakers to mean:
“Hey, I was in the middle of watching that movie and then…” So your listener will have further questions, such as “so, what happened?” If nothing special happened during that time, you chose the wrong tense [the wrong “aspect”, to be more technical].
Russian has a similar distinction to Spanish but the markedness is reversed:
Imperfect is unmarked," Я смотрел фильм’ means “I watched the movie (and, of course, that took some time, as it’s usual with films, no big deal here)”.
Perfect is marked, it implies something out of ordinary, completion gets stressed. “Я посмотрел фильм” is construed to mean “I watched the movie and, hey! I did manage to finish it!!!”. That makes listeners want to ask something like “Why do you insist on you having finished the movie?”, “Is it very long, very bad, too gory; are you hyperactive, …?”. If you didn’t find it particularly difficult/(note worthy) to finish, you chose the wrong aspect.
I was anxiously awaiting this for over a year. It finally came out a few weeks ago - I checked it out and was immediately disappointed. I don’t think it’s an efficient tool for learning languages. Lingq is much better. =)
I have the same opinion.
Incidentally, there are cases in both languages where markedness gets reversed. I just mentioned the general situation for simple actions.
This is very fascinating. I agree this is how aspects seem to work in Russian. And I also agree that it would be a mistake to try to conceptualise this by relating Russian aspect to (for example) the tenses in English or Italian, etc - as so many teaching manuals seem to do.
There is one interesting thing I have noticed. I may be completely wrong (of course!) But it rather seems that there may be differences in usage according to the Aktionsart of a verb?
For example, if we take a verb like читать or работать, we could say the Aktionsart already implies a process, an ongoing action. Therefore the imperfective is, as Francisco says, the natural default state of affairs. So to make a special point that one is referring to a completed period of duration of the action, we see prefixed perfective versions: почитать and поработать.
Okay. But how about verbs such as “to kill” or “to break”, which have an Aktionsart describing a sudden and violent change of state?
In the case of “to kill”, the perfective убить does seem to me to be the natural default form - the one that would most often be used(?)
And thus it is the imperfective убивать which is (perhaps??) the specially marked form (in this case by stem modification) and which would be used to make a point that one is here referring to repeated and/or habitual application of the action?
Am I on the right track here, I wonder??
So a Russian might say “I watched a film last night” and use the imperfective (if I understand correctly?)
But would he ever say “I broke a plate last night” and use the imperfective?? (That is, unless he were referring to repeated habitual breaking - which is something a little different.)
What do native speakers say about this?
+Prinz_Schtick. Yes, exactly! That’s why I added a note to my previous comment.
What I think happens is this:
a) There are some cases where it’s “obvious” by meaning that the action is usually used as a protracted background. In that case imperfect is unmarked in all languages having that distinction. Perfect is only used to mark very strongly an end to the action.
b) There are cases in which the action is “obviously” brief and punctual and perfect is unmarked in all relevant languages. Yo use imperfect for special cases in which it’s not like that or you want to change perspective.
c) There’s a “gray” area in between in which actions both have clear beginnings/ends but they also take non-negligible time: watching movies, doing homework, reading books, washing dishes, … In that case Russian tends to favor imperfect as unmarked, Latin languages, perfect.
Examples of point a:
- states (I was happy, I was rich, I was home, … ) Spanish uses imperfect as unmarked here, as Russian usually does: “Estaba contento” is “normal”. “Estuve/He estado contento” stresses that I stopped being so;
- possession (“I had money”, “I had a house”, …)
- Modal verbs (wanted, had to, …) Spanish and Russian: imperfect’s unmarked: Quería ser médico, Я хотел быть врачом" are the usual expressions, whereas quise/схотел strongly emphasize that you stopped wanting it completely. Same thing with obligation, etc.
You’ve given some examples of point b: beginning, finishing, explosions, changes of state (which include “killing” or “breaking”).
Natives of Latin languages learning Russian have no difficulty in points a and b but may get confused by point c. I suppose it’s the same for Russian speakers learning Latin languages.
[Incidentally, I do think that comparing Latin and Slavic imperfect and perfect in the past , and Greek “aorist” too, is useful, only the further dimension of “markedness” must be added to the picture]
Yeah, I think you’re really on to something here! (If so, this is a far better explanation of Russian aspect than I have seen in any grammar book!)
I think there’s no need to add that, while I’m quite confident about the Spanish examples, I stand to be corrected on the Russian ones.
Yes, we Spanish, see the action to watch a movie as a “fact” on the past, we want to say the action was completed in a determinated period of time, and thats alll.
I guess from the russian point of view, they see the action as a process, and thats because they use the other time. Thats the only logical explanation.
Anyway,for aspects i try to learn just by remembering the way they talk, for example i know when they say встречаться they usually mean to start dating, (to meet many times), but if they say встретиться i know they are meaning to meet one time, for wharever reason (work meeting, a coffe, a date, etc).
In this particular case, of я смотлел этот фильм i just tried to remember that they usually say смотрел and not посмотрел in this particular situation, i just memorized it whithout asking myself why.
Of course is useful to have a logical explanation, but many times you cant understand what grammar does and why, so its most useful to try to understand what the exact though is trying to convey. (i hope what i wrote makes sense).
Anyway thank you for the explanation,it was very complete and it really helped me to understand more Russian language)