Elamur: **Mova** · [Parse](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/parse/) · [Dictionary](https://md.dictionary.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [Translate](https://md.translate.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [Groupants](https://md.groupants.elamur.ai/free/en/)

[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/33-implicature-and-presupposition/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [languages](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/) / [uk](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/) / 33. Implicature and presupposition

# 33. Implicature and presupposition

**On this page**

1. [1. Implicature and presupposition in brief](#1-implicature-and-presupposition-in-brief)
2. [2. Scalar implicatures](#2-scalar-implicatures)
3. [3. Numerals, quantifiers and agreement](#3-numerals-quantifiers-and-agreement)
4. [4. Aspect: completion, attempt and annulled result](#4-aspect-completion-attempt-and-annulled-result)
5. [5. Object case: partitive genitive and the genitive of negation](#5-object-case-partitive-genitive-and-the-genitive-of-negation)
6. [6. Presupposition triggers](#6-presupposition-triggers)
7. [7. Focus, clefts and *саме*](#7-focus-clefts-and-саме)
8. [8. Givenness without articles: word order and demonstratives](#8-givenness-without-articles-word-order-and-demonstratives)
9. [9. Conventional implicatures of particles and connectives](#9-conventional-implicatures-of-particles-and-connectives)
10. [10. Relevance and manner in dialogue](#10-relevance-and-manner-in-dialogue)
11. [11. Projection, cancellation and accommodation](#11-projection-cancellation-and-accommodation)
12. [12. How Mova handles it](#12-how-mova-handles-it)
13. [13. Sources](#13-sources)

A Ukrainian speaker who says *Деякі гості пішли* 'Some guests left' lets the hearer infer that not all did; one who says *Я відчиняв вікно* 'I was opening / I opened the window (imperfective)' may let the hearer infer that the window is not open now; one who says *Він знову запізнився* 'He was late again' takes for granted that he was late before. The first two are **implicatures** — inferences the hearer draws from the choice of a weaker or less specific form, cancellable without contradiction; the third is a **presupposition** — background the utterance takes for granted and which survives negation and questions. Ukrainian has the scalar and conversational implicatures of every language, and two families of its own: those carried by **aspect** (completion, result, attempt) and those carried by **particles** (*ж*, *таки*, *навіть*, *ще*, *вже*), together with presuppositions marked by **word order** in a language without articles. This chapter describes them with examples, counts the triggers in UD 2.18 Ukrainian treebanks (2026-11-06), and says what Mova computes: its implicature and presupposition module reads English trees and English lemmas only; the Ukrainian fact extractor keeps the triggers as adverbials or particles without inference.

Contents

1. [Implicature and presupposition in brief](#1-implicature-and-presupposition-in-brief)
2. [Scalar implicatures](#2-scalar-implicatures)
3. [Numerals, quantifiers and agreement](#3-numerals-quantifiers-and-agreement)
4. [Aspect: completion, attempt and annulled result](#4-aspect-completion-attempt-and-annulled-result)
5. [Object case: partitive genitive and the genitive of negation](#5-object-case-partitive-genitive-and-the-genitive-of-negation)
6. [Presupposition triggers](#6-presupposition-triggers)
7. [Focus, clefts and *саме*](#7-focus-clefts-and-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5)
8. [Givenness without articles: word order and demonstratives](#8-givenness-without-articles-word-order-and-demonstratives)
9. [Conventional implicatures of particles and connectives](#9-conventional-implicatures-of-particles-and-connectives)
10. [Relevance and manner in dialogue](#10-relevance-and-manner-in-dialogue)
11. [Projection, cancellation and accommodation](#11-projection-cancellation-and-accommodation)
12. [How Mova handles it](#12-how-mova-handles-it)
13. [Sources](#13-sources)

Related chapters: aspect in [13. Verbs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/13-verbs/); negation and the genitive of negation in [27. Negation](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/27-negation/); word order and information structure in [29. Ellipsis, word order and information structure](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/29-ellipsis-word-order-information-structure/); particles in [30. Pragmatics: an overview](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/30-pragmatics-overview/) §3; the English chapter [33. Implicature and presupposition](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/33-implicature-and-presupposition/) for Grice, Horn scales and the classical triggers.

---

## 1. Implicature and presupposition in brief

|  | implicature | presupposition |
| --- | --- | --- |
| source | the speaker's choice among alternatives, against the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, manner | a trigger word or construction |
| cancellable? | yes: *Деякі гості пішли, а може, й усі.* 'Some guests left, maybe all of them.' | not without oddity: *#Він знову запізнився, хоча раніше ніколи не запізнювався.* |
| survives negation? | no: *Не всі гості пішли* does not implicate 'not some' | yes: *Він не знову запізнився* — still presupposes an earlier lateness |
| survives a question? | no | yes: *Він знову запізнився?* |
| Ukrainian examples | *деякі* → not all; imperfective past → result not reached; *можливо* → not certain | *знову*, *ще*, *вже*, *теж*, *перестати*, *знати що*, *шкодувати що*, *саме*, *навіть* |

## 2. Scalar implicatures

A word on a scale of informativeness implicates that the stronger words do not hold. Ukrainian scales (constructed examples; the parallel English scales are listed in `SCALES` of [`prag/src/infer.rs`](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/prag/)):

| scale (weak → strong) | example | implicature |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *деякі* < *багато* < *більшість* < *усі/всі* | *Деякі студенти склали іспит.* (*Deiaki studenty sklaly ispyt.*) | not many, not all |
| *кілька* < *багато* | *Прийшло кілька людей.* | not many |
| *або* < *і* | *Купи хліба або молока.* | not both (needed) |
| *можливо* < *імовірно* < *напевно* | *Можливо, він приїде.* | not probable, not certain |
| *можна* < *треба* | *Можна прийти раніше.* | it is not required |
| *могти* < *мусити* | *Ти можеш піти.* | you don't have to stay — and you don't have to go |
| *іноді* < *часто* < *завжди* | *Він іноді запізнюється.* | not often |
| *теплий* < *гарячий* | *Чай теплий.* | not hot |
| *прохолодний* < *холодний* | *Вода прохолодна.* | not cold |
| *добрий* < *чудовий* | *Фільм добрий.* | not excellent |
| *почати* < *закінчити* | *Я почав статтю.* | I haven't finished it |
| *подобатися* < *любити* | *Він мені подобається.* | I don't love him |

Conditions under which the implicature is not drawn, as in English: under negation (*Не всі гості пішли* → some did; *не* + strong item gives the inference that the weak one holds), when the stronger item is in the sentence (*деякі, якщо не всі* 'some, if not all'), when the speaker cancels it (*а то й усі* 'or even all', *навіть усі*, *щонайменше* 'at least'). Ukrainian has a lexical cancellation marker the English list lacks: *а то й* (*Чекали годину, а то й дві* 'We waited an hour, if not two').

Frequencies of the scale items in the treebanks (lemmas, all splits, 2026-11-06): *весь* 282 (IU) / 377 (ParlaMint), *багато* 109 / 67, *деякий* 40 / 32, *більшість* 26 / 32. Parliamentary speech uses *весь* and *більшість* (votes) more, *багато* less than written texts.

## 3. Numerals, quantifiers and agreement

A cardinal (*три* 'three') is read as "exactly three" by default and as "at least three" in contexts of thresholds (*Потрібно три голоси* 'Three votes are needed' — four will do). The approximative inversion of numeral and noun (*годин зо дві* 'about two hours', *років п'ять* 'five years or so', [22. Phrases](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/22-phrases/)) cancels the exact reading by grammar, where English uses *about*.

The agreement of a quantified subject carries a construal, not an implicature in Grice's sense but a choice with a pragmatic effect. Janda and Palii (2024, `janda-2024-bahato-many`) studied subjects of the form *багато* + genitive plural in a Ukrainian corpus: the verb is singular in 69.1% of attestations (*Багато людей прийшло*) and plural in 30.9% (*Багато людей прийшли*). Verb-subject order and inanimate nouns favour the singular, subject-verb order and animate nouns the plural; and the plural has been rising since about the 1950s and overtakes the singular in the current decade. They interpret the singular as construing the group as a homogeneous mass and the plural as a multiplicity of individuals. A hearer of *Багато людей прийшли* is invited to think of the people one by one. Here the codified norm, which allows both, is being reshaped by usage.

## 4. Aspect: completion, attempt and annulled result

### 4.1 The perfective asserts the result, the imperfective does not

The **perfective past** says that the action reached its limit: *Я відчинив вікно* (*Ya vidchynyv vikno*) 'I opened the window (it got open)'. The **imperfective past** names the action without asserting the result (chapter [13. Verbs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/13-verbs/)). In a context where the result is at issue, the choice of the imperfective implicates — by quantity, since the speaker could have used the perfective — that the result was not reached or did not last:

| imperfective past | implicature in context | perfective counterpart |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *Я відчиняв вікно, але не відчинив.* | attempt, failure (the explicit continuation confirms the implicature) | *Я відчинив вікно.* |
| *Він складав іспит.* | he took the exam (maybe failed) | *Він склав іспит.* 'He passed the exam.' |
| *Я тебе вчора шукав.* | I looked for you (and didn't find you) | *Я тебе вчора знайшов.* |
| *Вона мене переконувала.* | she tried to persuade me | *Вона мене переконала.* 'She convinced me.' |
| *Хто відчиняв вікно?* (in a cold room, the window now shut) | someone opened it and it was shut again — the **annulled result** | *Хто відчинив вікно?* (the window is open now) |
| *Ти читав «Кобзар»?* | have you read it at some time (general-factual; no failure implied) | *Ти прочитав «Кобзар»?* 'Have you finished reading it?' |

The attempt reading is cancellable: *Я відчиняв вікно, і нарешті відчинив* 'I was opening the window and finally got it open' is not contradictory. That is the mark of an implicature, not of meaning. The annulled-result reading belongs to verbs of reversible motion and state change (*відчиняти/зачиняти*, *вмикати/вимикати*, *приходити*, *брати*): *До тебе приходив Петро* 'Petro came to see you' (and has gone again), against *До тебе прийшов Петро* 'Petro has come to see you' (he is here).

### 4.2 Aspect and the general-factual question

*Ти вже обідав?* 'Have you had lunch yet?' (imperfective) asks whether the event has taken place at all; the perfective *Ти вже пообідав?* asks whether a lunch in progress or expected is done. An imperfective answer *Обідав* 'I have (had lunch)' is complete; the perfective *Пообідав* adds that the meal was the expected one.

### 4.3 The perfective future and the imperfective present

The perfective present form is a future and makes a promise or prediction specific: *Зроблю* 'I'll do it (and finish)'. The imperfective future *Буду робити* / *робитиму* commits to the activity, not the result, and can implicate a lower commitment: *Я буду це робити* 'I'll be working on it' — not 'I'll get it done'.

## 5. Object case: partitive genitive and the genitive of negation

The case of a mass-noun object carries a quantity inference. *Дівчина купила молока* 'The girl bought (some) milk' (genitive) against *Дівчина купила молоко* 'The girl bought the milk' (accusative): the genitive implicates an indefinite quantity, the accusative a definite or whole one. Chaika, Lehka, Tamm and Vaiss (2024, `chaika-2024-partitive-uktenten`) tested the traditional claim that this partitive genitive goes with perfective verbs on the ukTenTen 2020 web corpus: for concrete mass nouns (*вода*, *цукор*, *борщ*) the Slavic pattern holds, but imperfective verbs also occur regularly with partitive genitives, and for abstract mass nouns (*бадьорість* 'vigour') aspect does not influence the object case at all.

Under negation the object may stand in the genitive (*Я не бачу книжки* 'I don't see a/the book') or the accusative (*Я не бачу книжку*): the genitive is the older and literary choice, the accusative the more frequent in current speech — objects (`obj`) of a head negated by *не* are genitive 264 and accusative 153 times in the written IU treebank, but genitive 144 and accusative 198 times in parliamentary ParlaMint (UD 2.18, all splits, 2026-11-06; the genitives include objects of verbs that govern the genitive anyway) — and the genitive tends to imply non-existence or indefiniteness (*Тут немає книжки* 'There is no book here'), the accusative a specific object (chapter [27. Negation](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/27-negation/)).

## 6. Presupposition triggers

### 6.1 The inventory

| class | Ukrainian trigger | example | presupposition |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| factive verbs | *знати, що*; *шкодувати / жалкувати, що*; *радіти, що*; *дивуватися, що*; *забути, що*; *помітити, що*; *зрозуміти, що*; *дізнатися, що* | *Він шкодує, що прийшов.* | he came |
| non-factive (contrast) | *думати*, *вважати*, *сподіватися*, *казати*, *здаватися* | *Він думає, що прийшов вчасно.* | none |
| change of state | *перестати*, *кинути* (+ inf.), *почати*, *припинити*, *продовжувати*, *більше не* | *Він перестав курити.* | he used to smoke |
| iteratives | *знову*, *знов*, *ще раз*, *вдруге*, *повернутися* | *Він знову запізнився.* | he was late before |
| additives | *теж*, *також*, *і* (= also), *ще й* | *Петро теж прийшов.* | someone else came |
| phase particles | *ще* 'still', *вже* 'already', *ще не* 'not yet', *уже не* 'no longer' | *Вона ще спить.* | she was asleep before now |
| scalar additive | *навіть* | *Навіть Петро прийшов.* | others came; Petro was the least likely |
| exclusive | *тільки*, *лише* | *Тільки Петро прийшов.* | Petro came (the assertion: nobody else) |
| identifying focus | *саме*, *це … (що)*, pseudo-cleft *той, хто …* | *Саме Петро розбив вікно.* | someone broke the window |
| wh-question | *хто*, *що*, *коли*, *чому* | *Хто розбив вікно?* | someone broke it |
| temporal clause | *після того як*, *відколи*, *перш ніж* | *Відколи він поїхав, тут тихо.* | he left |
| possessive, *свій* | *його дружина*, *свій брат* | *Його дружина лікарка.* | he has a wife |
| demonstrative noun phrase | *цей*, *той* + noun | *Той чоловік знову тут.* | a man identifiable to both |
| counterfactual | *якби* + past + *би* | *Якби він знав, він би прийшов.* | he did not know |

### 6.2 Frequencies

Lemma counts in UD 2.18, all splits, 2026-11-06 (IU / ParlaMint): *ще* 240 / 220, *вже* + *уже* 208 / 194, *також* 139 / 116, *навіть* 145 / 37, *тільки* 136 / 134, *лише* 109 / 56, *саме* 64 / 74, *теж* 35 / 20, *знову* + *знов* 48 / 27; verbs *знати* 114 / 75, *думати* 57 / 106, *вважати* 33 / 75, *почати* + *починати* 97 / 36, *перестати* + *переставати* 17 / 2, *продовжувати* 8 / 22, *забути* 15 / 3, *шкодувати* 0 / 1. Parliament uses the non-factive verbs of opinion (*думати*, *вважати*) far more than the factive *знати* and more than the written treebank does — the language of opinion, not of established fact; written texts use *навіть* four times as often.

### 6.3 Factive and non-factive *що*

The complementiser *що* is the same after *знати* and after *думати*; the presupposition comes from the verb. *Знати* with an indirect question (*знати, хто прийшов*) presupposes that the question has an answer. Negation of the matrix leaves the factive presupposition intact: *Він не знає, що вона приїхала* 'He doesn't know that she has arrived' — she has; *Він не думає, що вона приїхала* 'He doesn't think she has arrived' — nothing presupposed, and by neg-raising read as 'he thinks she hasn't'. *Забути*, *забувати* is factive with *що* (*Я забув, що сьогодні неділя* — it is Sunday) and implicative with an infinitive (*Я забув вимкнути світло* — I didn't switch it off).

### 6.4 *Ще* and *вже*

The phase particles presuppose a prior state and assert its continuation or change:

| sentence | presupposition | assertion |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *Вона ще спить.* | she was asleep | she is asleep now |
| *Вона вже спить.* | she was not asleep earlier (or: expected to be later) | she is asleep now |
| *Вона ще не спить.* | she will (is expected to) sleep | she is not asleep now |
| *Вона вже не спить.* | she was asleep | she is not now |
| *Йому вже сорок.* | (expectation that it is a lot) | he is forty |
| *Йому ще сорок.* | (expectation that it is little) | he is forty |

*Вже* and *ще* with numbers carry the speaker's evaluation of the amount as large or small; English needs *already* / *only*.

## 7. Focus, clefts and *саме*

Ukrainian has no grammaticalised *it*-cleft; identifying focus is marked by the particle ***саме*** 'exactly, precisely', by a fronted ***це*** 'it is (this)', by word order and stress, and by the pseudo-cleft:

| construction | example | gloss | presupposition |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| *саме* + focus | *Саме Петро розбив вікно.* (*Same Petro rozbyv vikno.*) | 'It was Petro who broke the window.' | someone broke the window |
| *це* + focus + clause | *Це Петро розбив вікно.* | 'It's Petro who broke the window.' | same |
| *це* + focus + *що* (spoken) | *Це Петро, що розбив вікно.* (rare) | — | same |
| pseudo-cleft | *Той, хто розбив вікно, — Петро.* / *Розбив вікно Петро.* | 'The one who broke the window is Petro.' | same |
| focus at the end (neutral stress) | *Вікно розбив Петро.* | 'The window was broken by Petro.' | same, by word order alone (§8) |
| exclusive | *Тільки Петро розбив вікно.* | 'Only Petro broke a window.' | Petro broke a window |

*Саме* is attached as `discourse` or `advmod` (54 `discourse` arcs in IU, 64 in ParlaMint; 2026-11-06); in many uses it adds precision rather than contrast (*саме тому* 'precisely because of that', *саме зараз* 'right now'). The *це*-construction is a copular sentence with a clause, analysed in UD with *це* as `expl` or `nsubj` according to the treebank; the presupposition is the same.

## 8. Givenness without articles: word order and demonstratives

English presupposes the existence and identifiability of a referent with *the*. Ukrainian, without articles, uses **position** and **demonstratives**: a noun phrase at the start of the clause is normally given (identifiable), at the end new.

| Ukrainian | reading of *книжка* | English |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *Книжку я прочитав.* | given: the book we know of | 'I've read the book.' |
| *Я прочитав книжку.* | new or neutral | 'I read a book.' / 'I read the book.' |
| *На столі лежить книжка.* | new, introduced | 'There is a book on the table.' |
| *Книжка лежить на столі.* | given | 'The book is on the table.' |
| *Ця книжка лежить на столі.* | given, pointed to | 'This book is on the table.' |

The presupposition of identifiability, then, is carried by the theme position (chapter 29) and by *цей/той*; a translation into English must choose *the* or *a* from this evidence. The reverse also holds: a hearer who meets an unknown referent in theme position accommodates it as known (*Сусід знову грає на трубі* 'The neighbour is playing the trumpet again' — a specific neighbour is presupposed).

## 9. Conventional implicatures of particles and connectives

Some particles add a meaning that is not part of the truth conditions and not cancellable, Grice's conventional implicatures:

| item | example | conventional content |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *але*, *проте*, *однак* | *Він бідний, але чесний.* | a contrast (poor people are expected not to be honest) |
| *а* | *Я йду, а ти лишайся.* | a contrast of topics (not an opposition of expectations) |
| *навіть* | *Навіть діти знають.* | children are the least expected to know |
| *таки* | *Він таки прийшов.* | it was doubted or opposed that he would |
| *ж*, *же* | *Ти ж знаєш.* | the hearer knows / should know |
| *адже* | *Адже він лікар.* | the reason is known to the hearer |
| *хіба* | *Хіба він знає?* | the speaker expects "no" |
| *невже* | *Невже він знає?* | the speaker is surprised and expected "no" |
| *аж* | *Аж три години чекали.* | three hours is a lot |
| *лише*, *тільки* (with numbers) | *Лише три години чекали.* | three hours is little |

The pair *аж три години* / *лише три години* shows that the same truth (three hours) is presented as more or less than expected; in English *as many as* / *only*.

## 10. Relevance and manner in dialogue

Indirect answers are understood by relevance, as in English:

> — *Підеш з нами в кіно?* 'Will you come to the cinema with us?' — *У мене завтра іспит.* 'I have an exam tomorrow.' → no.

> — *Як новий начальник?* 'How's the new boss?' — *Ну, костюм у нього гарний.* 'Well, he has a nice suit.' → nothing good to say about him; *ну* signals the reluctance.

Manner (orderliness): coordinated perfective verbs are read in the order told: *Він прийшов і сів* 'He came and sat down'. Ukrainian **imperfective** coordination does not imply order (*Він читав і писав* 'He was reading and writing'); the "be orderly" inference attaches to perfectives, as in English it attaches to event verbs.

Quality: a question implicates that the speaker does not know; a rhetorical question with *хіба* or *невже* asserts the opposite of its form (chapter 26). Exclamations implicate a strong feeling.

## 11. Projection, cancellation and accommodation

Presuppositions **project** through negation, questions, modals and conditionals: *Якщо він знову запізниться, я піду* 'If he's late again, I'll leave' — he has been late before. They are **filtered** when the context entails them: *Якщо він колись запізнювався, то він знову запізниться* does not presuppose anything. They are **cancelled** (with effort) in metalinguistic negation: *Він не «знову» запізнився — він раніше ніколи не запізнювався!*. They are **accommodated** when new: *Вибачте, я запізнився — моя машина зламалася* 'Sorry I'm late, my car broke down' — the hearer accepts that there is a car.

The particle *ж* turns accommodation into a reproach: *Ти ж обіцяв!* 'You *did* promise!' presents the promise as known common ground and blames the hearer for ignoring it.

## 12. How Mova handles it

### 12.1 The inference module: English trees, English lemmas

`prag infer` computes scalar implicatures, presuppositions and two maxim inferences ([`prag/src/infer.rs`](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/prag/)). Everything it matches is English:

- `SCALES`: *some < many < most < all*, *or < and*, *possible < likely < certain*, *may < must*, *sometimes < often < always*, *warm < hot*, *cool < cold*, *good < excellent*, and others — English lemmas only;
- presupposition triggers: *again*, *still*, *also*, *too*, *stop*, *quit*, *continue*, *keep*, *know*, *realize*, *regret*, *forget* (with a clausal complement); a presupposition is "licensed" when the earlier 50 tokens contain the same predicate, otherwise reported as accommodated;
- Quality and Manner: questions with English wh-words and inverted English auxiliaries; *and* between event verbs, blocked by English stative verbs and reordering words (*after*, *before*, *while* …).

The functions take `en::annotate::Word` trees from the English parser. No Ukrainian sentence reaches them: there is no Ukrainian model in [`tools/mova-parse`](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/tools/mova-parse/), and `langseg` segments only Latin-script languages. Aspect plays no part in the English module, which has no counterpart of §4.

### 12.2 The Ukrainian fact extractor

`kg` ([`kg/src/uk.rs`](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/kg/)) records aspect and tense on the predicate (from VESUM), and keeps the trigger words as members — *знову*, *теж*, *ще*, *уже* as `adverbial`, *це* as `particle` — without drawing any inference. Measured 2026-11-06 (CPU, `kg parse` from the worktree at commit `ac9a23149`, VESUM, empty name list):

| sentence | `kg` output | verdict |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *Деякі гості пішли.* | predicate *піти* (past, perf., pl.); subject *гість*; `attribute:subject` *деякий* | right; no 'not all' |
| *Я відчиняв вікно.* | predicate *відчиняти* `past.imperf`; subject *я*; `object:v_zna` *вікно* | right; aspect recorded, the attempt or annulled-result reading not drawn |
| *Він знову запізнився.* | predicate *запізнитися* (past, perf.); subject *він*; `adverbial` *знову* | right; no presupposition |
| *Він теж прийшов.* | predicate *прийти*; subject *він*; `adverbial` *теж* | same |
| *Вона ще спить.* | predicate *спати* (pres.); subject *вона*; `adverbial` *ще* | same |
| *Він уже прийшов.* | predicate *прийти*; subject *він*; `adverbial` *уже* | same |
| *Він перестав курити.* | predicate *перестати*, `predicate:infinitive` *курити*; subject *він* | right (*перестати* is on the phasal-verb list); 'he used to smoke' not drawn |
| *Я шкодую про це.* | predicate *шкодувати*; subject *я*; `adverbial:про+v_zna` *це* | right as structure |
| *Це Петро розбив вікно.* | predicate *розбити*; subject *Петро*; `particle` *це*; `object:v_zna` *вікно* | right: *це* as a focus particle (a rule added after the gold sample) |
| *Саме Петро розбив вікно.* | … `attribute:object:v_zna` *сам* (*саме* read as the adjective 'self' agreeing with *вікно*) | **wrong**: the focus particle is analysed as a pronominal adjective |
| *Він шкодує, що прийшов.* | (not run: comma and *що* are rejected by the gates) | factive complements are out of reach |

### 12.3 Not there yet

- No Ukrainian scales, triggers or maxim rules; `prag infer` does not run on Ukrainian.
- Aspect is in `kg`'s grammar but not used for completion, attempt or annulled-result inferences.
- Factive complements (*знати, що*; *шкодувати, що*) are rejected by the `kg` gates (comma, *що*).
- *Саме* is misread as the adjective *сам*; focus and clefts are not represented.
- Word-order givenness is not computed: a `kg` fact keeps the word positions but no theme/rheme or definiteness.
- Conventional implicatures of particles (*таки*, *ж*, *навіть*, *аж*, *лише*) are not computed; the particles are kept as members without meaning.

## 13. Sources

- Janda, L. A., Palii, Y. 2024. Understanding 'many' through the lens of Ukrainian *багато*. *Russian Linguistics* 48(1). `janda-2024-bahato-many` (CC BY 4.0)
- Chaika, L., Lehka, N., Tamm, A., Vaiss, N. 2024. Ukrainian Aspect and Object Case in ukTenTen: The Partitive Genitive of Perfective Verbs and Mass Nouns. In *Partitive Constructions and Partitive Elements Within and Across Language Borders in Europe*, Edizioni Ca' Foscari. `chaika-2024-partitive-uktenten` (CC BY 4.0)
- UD Ukrainian-ParlaMint 2.18 (CC BY-SA 4.0) and UD Ukrainian-IU 2.18 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; counts only): lemma counts with `awk`, all splits, 2026-11-06.
- Grice 1975, Horn 1972/1989, Karttunen 1973/1974, Stalnaker 1974 and the English treatment: as described in the English chapter, not re-read for this one.
- Mova: [`prag/src/infer.rs`](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/prag/) (`SCALES`, `implicatures`, `presuppositions`, `maxims`, `STATIVE`, `REORDER`), [`kg/src/uk.rs`](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/kg/), [kg — the Mova knowledge graph](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/kg/), [mova-parse](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/tools/mova-parse/).
- The English counterpart: [33. Implicature and presupposition](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/33-implicature-and-presupposition/).
- [← previous 32. Politeness and hedging](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/32-politeness-and-hedging/)
- [next → 34. Irony and figurative language](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/34-irony-and-figurative-language/)
- [↑ back to Ukrainian: a reference manual for Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/uk/)