Talk:посꙑлати

Alternative forms or different aspects?

@Bezimenen Hi. Could it be the case that посꙑлати (posylati) is imperfective and посълати (posŭlati) is perfective, just like Russian cognates/derivations посыла́ть impf (posylátʹ) and посла́ть pf (poslátʹ)? We don't even have such categories for Old church Slavonic but they most likely had this feature. Cf. пьсати (pĭsati) (imperfective?) and написати (napisati) (perfective?). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Different aspects. I was about to correct it. Безименен (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bezimenen: Thanks. {{head|cu|verb|g=impf}} would work but {{cu-verb}} doesn't support aspects yet. More work needs to be done for OCS. It can be requested on WT:GP. I have just edited {{cu-verb}} so that you can use a for display only but it doesn't categorise. The Belarusian aspects are added by the conjugations tables. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)