1

All the dictionaries say this is a perfective verb. I wonder if it's both perfective and imperfective, in other words is it possible to say (excuse any errors) something like:

Я продержусь ради моих детей.

I'm holding out for my children's sake.

4

I'm holding out for my children's sake would be

Я держусь ради моих детей

The verb продержусь is indeed perfective.

Я продержусь ради моих детей

This is actually the Future tense, it means "I will (can?) hold out for my children's sake".

2
  • Thank you, so is продержаться а perfective of держаться in this meaning?
    – CocoPop
    Jan 22 '15 at 23:34
  • @CocoPop - That's true, продержаться is really perfective. The difference between держаться and продержаться is that the first means 'to hold out', and the second means 'to hold out during some time'. The prefix making the verb perfective often changes the meaning of the verb a bit.
    – Yellow Sky
    Jan 23 '15 at 2:40
-1

продерживаться probably exists, but might not be formal. Almost all verbs have both perfective and imperfective, even if dictionaries say they don't exist. Just search on Google for the usual form, and 99% of the time someone has used it.

5
  • 1
    It is less about whether they exist or not, but more about if they are really good matches. If a verb is "kinda" an aspectual partner "only you cannot use it in this context, and that context, and also when you mean repeated action please use a different partner"—that's a pretty poor aspectual pair to me. The whole reason why people learn pairs is to have verbs that are good matches and can double for each other when necessary. That's why dictionaries do not list "pairs" of questionable quality (искать/найти, for instance).
    – Shady_arc
    Jan 24 '15 at 0:31
  • you're right))) Just sometimes, it's very misleading to say that there isn't a partner. why shouldn't I have all the tools in Russian too. My dictionary says устаивать isn't a pair for устоять but it clearly can be used as a partner. I was just pointing out that I don't like how dictionaries gloss over some things—I'm not going to spend 5 years learning this language i have better things to do with my time—give it to me now :)
    – VCH250
    Jan 24 '15 at 3:07
  • Another problem comes when dictionaries give you say есть и съесть but don't tell yo "hey, by the way съедать exists and means something quite different than есть". Usually dictionaries and lingvo just say that the perfective has the same meaning when clearly it almost never does.
    – VCH250
    Jan 24 '15 at 3:13
  • @CoreyRoberts-Reynolds, please do not use words like *устаивать, *упадывать even if you think it is clear what they should mean. They sound as weird neologisms, like "bett" as a positive form of "better" in English.
    – J-mster
    Jan 24 '15 at 13:37
  • @CoreyRoberts-Reynolds That's because, depending on your interpretation, "есть" does not have an exact perfective partner. You'd use съесть if you mean consuming a certain edible object or поесть if you mean "engaging" in eating to replenish your energy (so it is up to you to eat everything or stop when you are full)
    – Shady_arc
    Jan 24 '15 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.