# The shorter adjectives, why do they create a psychological distance?



## cheshire

> Она добрая.　She is nice. (neutral)
> Она добра.　She is nice. (poignant, sarcastic)
> Ты глуп.　You are a fool. (criticizing)
> Ты глупый.　You are a real fool! (affectionately, to a friend)


Could you provide us with a psychological account of why the shorter adjectives are more prone to make a distance between the speaker and the listener? Is it really felt by the native speakers? Is the view really supported by natives?


----------



## Maroseika

cheshire said:


> Could you provide us with a psychological account of why the shorter adjectives are more prone to make a distance between the speaker and the listener? Is it really felt by the native speakers? Is the view really supported by natives?


I'm not sure it makes a distance.
What I feel is that the versions with the short adjectives are more bookish, with all the ensuing consequences, depending however on the context.


----------



## scriptum

cheshire said:


> Could you provide us with a psychological account of why the shorter adjectives are more prone to make a distance between the speaker and the listener? Is it really felt by the native speakers? Is the view really supported by natives?


 
Let’s try to understand the difference between long / short adjectives by using them in contexts where they have obviously different meanings.

Она добрая женщина («добра» is impossible).
Она ко мне добра («добрая» is impossible).
Она хорошая: she is good.
Она хороша: she is beautiful / acts brilliantly, etc.
Он красив в своем мундире: he looks handsome in his uniform («красивый» would sound silly).
Он красивый: he is handsome.

In other words, the short adjective seems to stand for an accidental, transient or superficial attribute. The long one seems to denote an inherent, constant or internal quality.
Of course, in many cases this difference may be simply irrelevant.


----------



## Maroseika

scriptum said:


> Let’s try to understand the difference between long / short adjectives by using them in contexts where they have obviously different meanings.
> .


I guess the question was about the difference in *the identical sentences*:
Он очень уродливый.
Он очень уродлив.
What's the difference?


----------



## scriptum

Maroseika said:


> I guess the question was about the difference in *the identical sentences*:
> Он очень уродливый.
> Он очень уродлив.
> What's the difference?


 
Он очень уродливый: He is born ugly and doomed for life.
Он очень уродлив: He is ugly and will remain so until his hair grows again.
Он очень уродлив с короткими волосами sounds correct to my ears.
Он очень уродливый с короткими волосами is impossible. At least, I would never say so...


----------



## Maroseika

scriptum said:


> Он очень уродливый: He is born ugly and doomed for life.
> Он очень уродлив: He is ugly and will remain so until his hair grows again.


I'm afraid I don't feel anything like that about these 2 versions.


----------



## cyanista

Neither do I, scriptum.


----------



## Jana337

In Czech, we have those long and short forms as well, although I think that Russians use them more consistently. For whatever it is worth, I too fail to see any kind of psychology behind the shorter adjectives. They are simply more elegant in writing.

Cheshire, could you quote your source in full?


----------



## Q-cumber

cyanista said:


> Neither do I, scriptum.



I share your and  *Maroseika*'s opinion here.
---------------------------------------------------------

Getting back to the initial questions:


> Она добрая.　She is nice. (neutral)
> Она добра.　She is nice. (poignant, sarcastic)
> Ты глуп.　You are a fool. (criticizing)
> Ты глупый.　You are a real fool! (affectionately, to a friend)



_ Is it really felt by the native speakers? Is the view really supported by natives?
_

Nope.  None of the remarks represents any universal feeling. 
_Она добра.　She is nice. *(poignant, sarcastic)*_ I'd say this comment is just false. There is nothing sarcastic in "Она добра" itself. 
  Should you speak *affectionately* to a friend, you can use any wording.


----------



## scriptum

Maroseika said:


> I'm afraid I don't feel anything like that about these 2 versions.


 
Excuse me, but feeling has nothing to do with our subject. We are talking about different morphological forms used in different syntactic constructions and having different meanings.

1. The longer form. Example:
*He is deaf*
“Deaf” can be translated _both_ as “глухой” and as “глух”.

2. The shorter form. Example:
*He is deaf to my words*
“Deaf” can _only_ be translated as “глух”.

We have here two clearly different meanings conveyed by different forms of the same adjective. I don’t see how any native Russian speaker could feel otherwise. Dixi.


----------



## Q-cumber

scriptum said:


> Excuse me, but feeling has nothing to do with our subject. We are talking about different morphological forms used in different syntactic constructions and having different meanings.
> 
> 1. The longer form. Example:
> *He is deaf*
> “Deaf” can be translated _both_ as “глухой” and as “глух”.
> 
> 2. The shorter form. Example:
> *He is deaf to my words*
> “Deaf” can _only_ be translated as “глух”.
> 
> We have here two clearly different meanings conveyed by different forms of the same adjective. I don’t see how any native Russian speaker could feel otherwise. Dixi.



Yes, this makes sence. Some *particular* adjectives behave like this.

*Он плохой* (He is bad ). *Он плох* (He is very ill)


----------



## Maroseika

Q-cumber said:


> Yes, this makes sence. Some *particular* adjectives behave like this.
> 
> *Он плохой* (He is bad ). *Он плох* (He is very ill)


I don't think your example refers to the subject. There are numerous words being part of the *idioms or settled figurative expressions*, such as:
он плох = он болен (i.e. in fact he might be a good guy)
он глух к моим словам = он не воспринимает мои слова (i.e in fact he is not deaf)

But we are talking about full and short forms of *neutral *adjectives in *"equal"* expressions and try to find out if there is any semantic nuance or just stylistic one between them:
он красивый/красив
дом огромный/огромен
рынок устойчивый/устойчив

I really don't see or feel any semantic difference.
I wonder (actually doubt) if there is any rule in Russian in this regard, but if not, native's feeling is the only criterion.


----------



## Q-cumber

Maroseika said:


> I don't think your example refers to the subject. There are numerous words being part of the *idioms or settled figurative expressions*, such as:
> он плох = он болен (i.e. in fact he might be a good guy)
> он глух к моим словам = он не воспринимает мои слова (i.e in fact he is not deaf)
> 
> But we are talking about full and short forms of *neutral *adjectives in *"equal"* expressions and try to find out if there is any semantic nuance or just stylistic one between them:
> он красивый/красив
> дом огромный/огромен
> рынок устойчивый/устойчив
> 
> I really don't see or feel any semantic difference.
> I wonder (actually doubt) if there is any rule in Russian in this regard, but if not, native's feeling is the only criterion.



That's what I meant, actually. In general, there is no invariable semantic difference between these two forms, yet some particular adjectives might change their meanings accordingly.

And that's why I marked the word "particular" bold in my post above.


----------



## cajzl

And what about the passive participles?

In Czech there is a significant difference between *zakrytý* and *zakryt*, *otevřený* and *otevřen*, ...

E.g.
*V létě bylo museum zavřené.* (long form) = The museum was closed during this (whole) summer.
*V létě bylo museum zavřeno.* (short form) = (it means that someone closed the museum in the summer)


----------



## Q-cumber

cajzl said:


> And what about the passive participles?
> In Czech there is a significant difference between *zakrytý* and *zakryt*, *otevřený* and *otevřen*, ...
> E.g.
> *V létě bylo museum zavřené.* (long form) = The museum was closed during this (whole) summer.
> *V létě bylo museum zavřeno.* (short form) = (it means that someone closed the museum in the summer)



In Russian the words "закрыт" and "закрытый" might have different meaning. 
"Закрыт"  - closed
"Закрытый" - "with a limited access".


----------



## Maroseika

cajzl said:


> And what about the passive participles?
> 
> In Czech there is a significant difference between *zakrytý* and *zakryt*, *otevřený* and *otevřen*, ...
> 
> E.g.
> *V létě bylo museum zavřené.* (long form) = The museum was closed during this (whole) summer.
> *V létě bylo museum zavřeno.* (short form) = (it means that someone closed the museum in the summer)


Same story like with the adjectives, i.e. no semantic difference in the identical sentences, but usually one of them is much more common:

1a. Дверь была отворена.
2a. Музей был закрыт.
3a. Поверхность была окислена.

1b. Дверь была отворённая.
2b. Музей был закрытый. 
3b. Поверхность была окисленная.
All b's are correct, but 1b and 2b are stylistically coloured (vernacularity). 
As for 3b, I even can't say so.

Anyway the sense of both versions is just the same.


----------



## scriptum

Maroseika said:


> он красивый/красив
> дом огромный/огромен
> рынок устойчивый/устойчив
> 
> I really don't see or feel any semantic difference.
> I wonder (actually doubt) if there is any rule in Russian in this regard, but if not, native's feeling is the only criterion.


 
Very well. Maroseika, let's discuss your examples.

Сад красивый / красив: either form can be used.
Сад красив при луне / весной / на фотографии: the longer form cannot be used. 

Река огромная / огромна: either form can be used.
Река огромна во время весеннего половодья: the longer form cannot beused.
Река огромна на картине: the longer form cannot be used.

Рынок устойчивый / устойчив: either form can be used.
Рынок устойчив в это время года: the longer form cannot be used.

Conclusion (wiping my forehead): the longer and the shorter adjective have different meanings. 
The longer one denotes an essential, inherent and immutable quality.
The shorter one stands for an accidental, temporary and superficial attribute.
Она красивая means: she is beautiful, always, by all means and in all circumstances.
Она красива means: she is beautiful, subject to certain conditions (dress, lighting etc.).


----------



## Maroseika

scriptum said:


> Сад красивый / красив: either form can be used.
> Сад красив при луне / весной / на фотографии: the longer form cannot be used.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> Сад при луне очень красивый. Not as good as "красив" but still can be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Река огромная / огромна: either form can be used.
> Река огромна во время весеннего половодья: the longer form cannot beused.
> Река огромна на картине: the longer form cannot be used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagree again, just interchange the words:
> Река в половодье огромная.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Рынок устойчивый / устойчив: either form can be used.
> Рынок устойчив в это время года: the longer form cannot be used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Рынок в это время года устойчивый.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Она красивая means: she is beautiful, always, by all means and in all circumstances.
> Она красива means: she is beautiful, subject to certain conditions (dress, lighting etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't feel this difference. Exact meaning will always depend on the context, and both forms may then mean different things:
> Она сегодня такая красивая!
> Она красива сегодня, как всегда.
Click to expand...


----------



## cyanista

Scriptum:

I believe that we use short adjectives to create rhythm and style, rather than enhance this or that meaning.

Она так красива в этом платье!

Ты в этом платье такая красивая!

The first sentence sounds elegant and posh - the second colloquial and simple (yet very sincere).


----------



## Anatoli

Here's another challenge for you. Can I ask only learners to try, native speakers please just observe! 

Какой он низкий!
Как он низок!


----------



## scriptum

Anatoli said:


> Here's another challenge for you. Can I ask only learners to try, native speakers please just observe!
> 
> Какой он низкий!
> Как он низок!


 
Since the learners remain silent:
this seems to be an excellent illustration to what I was saying.

Какой он низкий: he will always remain so.
Как он низок: he may change in the next moment.

In terms of philosophy, this opposition (long / short adjective) reflects the distinction between the essence and the accident.


----------



## Maroseika

scriptum said:


> Какой он низкий: he will always remain so.
> Как он низок: he may change in the next moment.


Again, I don't see any reason to distinguish short and full forms semantics in these examples. Exact sense will always depend on the context.
However I guess that may be the author of the examples meant figurative sense fo short form. But this aspect we have already discussed, too.


----------



## Q-cumber

*scriptum *
Hello!
Should I hear "Как он низок",  I'd comprehend this as "How mean (base) he is!" "He is a villain"....at least, without any special context and provided "he" is an animated being. 

Like *Maroseika*, I see no reason to attach any supplementary meaning to this or that form. 

"Один холм был низкий / низок, другой - высокий / высок". None of them will change its height.

As well as:

 "Раньше уровень уровень озера был низок / низкий , потом, после обильных дождей, он <уровень> стал гораздо выше." or "Спрос на <какой-то товар> был низок / низкий, но со временем он вырос". Why not to say this?


----------



## cyanista

Q-cumber said:


> Like *Maroseika*, I see no reason to attach any supplementary meaning to this or that form.
> 
> "Один холм был низкий / низок, другой - высокий / высок". None of them will change its height.
> 
> As well as:
> 
> "Раньше уровень уровень озера был низок / низкий , потом, после обильных дождей, он <уровень> стал гораздо выше." or "Спрос на <какой-то товар> был низок / низкий, но со временем он вырос". Why not to say this?


Exactly, Q-cumber! Remember this one?

*В чистом поле теремок, теремок. Он не низок, не высок, не высок...

**  
*


----------



## scriptum

Q-cumber said:


> *scriptum *
> Should I hear "Как он низок", I'd comprehend this as "How mean (base) he is!" "He is a villain".


That's exactly what I meant.
"Как он низок": *низок* ("low-minded") is an accidental property (one may be low-minded on Saturday and sublime on Friday).
"Какой он низкий": *низкий* ("low in stature") is an essential property. If you are short, you'll never be tall...


----------



## cyanista

Scriptum, are you going to ignore all the examples that don't suit your theory?

OK, let's take *низок/низкий* meaning base, vile, dishonorable. You can use both, voilà!

Этот поступок так низок!
Какой низкий поступок! 

Would you care to explain the difference in the meaning of the adjectives? I honestly don't see how you could.


----------



## scriptum

cyanista said:


> Этот поступок так низок!
> Какой низкий поступок!
> Would you care to explain the difference in the meaning of the adjectives? I honestly don't see how you could.


 
Hi cyanista,
Thanks for an interesting example. I believe it confirms what I was saying.
A _deed_ (поступок) is accidental by definition; that's why in your example the distinction accidental/essential is irrelevant, and both adjectives become fully synonymous.
Just try to replace the _deed_ even by an _inanimate object_ (let alone a _human being_), and you will immediately see the difference:
"Какой низкий стул!" is perfectly acceptable.
"Как низок этот стул!" sounds silly. Nobody in his right mind would use here a short adjective.


----------



## vince

How does the long vs. short adjective distinction compare with Spanish/Portuguese's distinction between "ser" and "estar"?

Ser is generally used for essence while
Estar is generally used for transient and temporary or "state" conditions.


----------



## Q-cumber

cyanista said:


> Exactly, Q-cumber! Remember this one?
> 
> *В чистом поле теремок, теремок. Он не низок, не высок, не высок...
> 
> **
> *



Yes, in fact, short forms sometimes sound somewhat archaic and remind about  old fairy tales.


----------



## Q-cumber

scriptum said:


> "Какой низкий стул!" is perfectly acceptable.
> "Как низок этот стул!" sounds silly. Nobody in his right mind would use here a short adjective.


I must be crazy, since I would willingly say "Этот стул был слишком низок для его длинных ног".


----------



## vince

So if I want to say "adjective" + "dl'a"  "s" "v" or whatever qualifier, then it must be a short adjective?


----------



## cyanista

I've found an interesting article (in Russian) that partly overlaps with *scriptum*'s explanation but goes further and mentions quite a few other differences in meaning and usage. According to it, the distinction constant/temporary holds for many adjectives but is non-existent in other cases. The article also dwells upon the difference *cheshire* was asking about: short adjectives with a positive connotation are supposed to be "more colourful and categorical" and those with a negative meaning "somewhat blunter and colder" than their "complete" counterparts.

Enjoy!

Стилистическое использование полных и кратких форм прилагательных

I look forward to your comments.


----------



## scriptum

vince said:


> So if I want to say "adjective" + "dl'a" "s" "v" or whatever qualifier, then it must be a short adjective?


No. In Q-cumber's example (just like in cyanista's one) the context excludes the use of an unessential / unconditional attribute. In such contexts the long and the short adjective seem to become interchangeable. One may say both низок and низким/низкий.


----------



## scriptum

cyanista said:


> I look forward to your comments.


Thanks for the link. Sorry for having tried to reinvent the bicycle...


----------



## Q-cumber

cyanista said:


> Стилистическое использование полных и кратких форм прилагательных
> 
> I look forward to your comments.



Fine, thanks!

"она веселая" — "она весела". Good sample to represent temporary (весела) vs constant (веселая) qualities.  However, a one could say: "Что-то она <слишком> весёлая* сегодня *. Напилась, что ли?"  And "весёлая" here will describe a temporary quality.

*scriptum*, here is something about your samples too. They stand a bit aside:


> Так, в прилагательных, обозначающих размер, *полные формы обозначают безотносительные признаки, а краткие указывают на признак по отношению к тому или иному конкретному положению или ситуации. Например, шкаф высокий и шкаф высок; во втором случае шкаф может быть и низким, но он оказывается излишне высоким, например, для того, чтобы его пронести через дверь или поместить в известном помещении.* Груз легок указывает лишь на то, что для достижения определенной цели вес груза недостаточен. Доска широка обозначает, что ширина доски препятствует ее использованию,например, для заделки щели.



Well, all that might have sense, but agian - all these rules aren't universal neither absolute.



> Вследствие такой резкой стилистической обособленности полных и кратких форм прилагательных, они несовместимы в качестве однородных членов. Так, нельзя сказать: Комната просторная и светла.


Sounds reasonable. However, the author immediately provides opposite samples. 


> Необычна фраза Гончарова: Речь его была плавная, исполнена приличия ("Воспоминания"). Сравните также: Был он коренаст, круглолиц, сонный, весь запачканный мукой (А. Н. Толстой, Хлеб).


----------



## jazyk

> How does the long vs. short adjective distinction compare with Spanish/Portuguese's distinction between "ser" and "estar"?
> 
> Ser is generally used for essence while
> Estar is generally used for transient and temporary or "state" conditions.


I was thinking about the same thing. In many situations, the long adjective seems to equal _ser_ and the short one, _estar_.

Он больной. - Él es enfermo./Ele é enfermo/doente.
Он болен. - Él está enfermo./Ele está enfermo/doente.

I also think the short form is used when reference is being made to a specific rather than a general situation:

Этот человек стар для нее. (That man is [too] old for her.)

He is not old in absolute terms, but he is old relative to her.

Jazyk


----------



## Q-cumber

jazyk said:


> I also think the short form is used when reference is being made to a specific rather than a general situation:
> Этот человек стар для нее. (That man is [too] old for her.)
> He is not old in absolute terms, but he is old relative to her.
> Jazyk


In my opinion, this phrase sounds incomplete without "слишком" [too].  
"Этот человек *слишком* стар для неё".  But as soon as we add this word, the long form is becoming applicable. 
"Этот человек *слишком* старый для неё".
Another variant (without "слишком") would be "Этот человек староват (somewhat old)  для неё".


----------



## cheshire

Jana337 said:


> In Czech, we have those long and short forms as well, although I think that Russians use them more consistently. For whatever it is worth, I too fail to see any kind of psychology behind the shorter adjectives. They are simply more elegant in writing.
> 
> Cheshire, could you quote your source in full?


Ahoy there! I'm struggling reading this thread!
I quoted it from here (in Japanese). It's tough to translate the whole thread...It's exactly the same question as this one here.


----------



## freiburg234

*In terms of philosophy, this opposition (long / short adjective) reflects the distinction between the essence and the accident. *

Yes. I think the evidence consistently points in that direction. I've noticed the same thing. Except, my choice of characterization is the dichotomy between "objectivity" and "subjectivity". Although, those too (two) are only  labels, just as "essence" and "accident".

I think what's important here is that we recognize that in the case of the one, i.e. long form, the observer is making some claim to objectivity or describing some immutable quality of the object under discussion. 

In contrast, in the case of the short form, the observer is underlining the subjectivity, hence, the transience, of the trait being described.

This is, evidently, the source of the perceived psychological distance. 

As we know, objectivity does not exist outside of the mind. Therefore, it is clear that when using the long form there is a greater psychological attachment to the utterance, because the observer expects the utterance will be perceived by others as factual. It's the equivalent of saying in English "It certainly is" or "Undoubtedly,...".

In the case of the short form, the observer has refrained from entering the risk that the utterance could be rejected as unfactual. In any event, no claim is made to objectivity and the observer acknowledges the subjectivity of the utterance by qualifying it as such by means of the short form. It's the equivalent of saying in English, "I think..." or "In my opinion...".

BTW. You'll find the same dichotomy holds true for the use of attributes in nominative versus the instrumental.


----------



## anderston

I must say that for me usage of the long form sounds a little bit more colloquial than usage of the short...I mean to say that in literature short versions are more often used ... For me "Он красивый" sounds a little clumsier, though in "Он такой красивый!" this feeling disappears...
In short, I'd rather say "Он красив" and most likely  "Он так красив!"


----------



## cheshire

Guys, thanks for your informative answers!





> BTW. You'll find the same dichotomy holds true for *the use of attributes in nominative versus the instrumental*.


Mr freiburg, could you elaborate on this, please? I'm curious!


----------



## Anatoli

cheshire said:


> Guys, thanks for your informative answers!Mr freiburg, could you elaborate on this, please? I'm curious!


Perhaps the reference is to
Он был доктор (Nominative) vs
Он был доктор*ом* (Instrumental)?

Adjectives are actually rarely used in the short form in oblique (other than nominative) cases in modern Russian.


----------



## freiburg234

cheshire said:


> Guys, thanks for your informative answers!Mr freiburg, could you elaborate on this, please? I'm curious!



Have a look at this verse, please:

Будь таким, *какой ты есть*.
Или же будь таким, *каким ты кажешься*. 
(Джелаладдин Руми)

Any further questions on this subject?


----------



## cheshire

Thanks!
If you could give us a little more explanation, that'd be even greater!


----------



## freiburg234

Okay. Here goes:

Будь таким, какой ты есть.
Или же будь таким, каким ты кажешься. 

The first part of either line tells us to "будь таким", which is consistent with the grammar rule on use of instrumental with быть.

Then, the first line continues with the nominative какой, which is contrasted with the instrumental каким in the second line. At this juncture, we're engaging in an interpretation, a choice.

What is that choice? Why is it that we have a choice here?

Let's look: "...ты есть" vs. "...ты кажешься".

That's the key. The choice is between _essence-objectivity_ (...ты есть) and _accident-subjectivity_ (...ты кажешься). 

Hence, the choice between nominative *"какой...ты есть"* and instrumental *"каким...ты кажешься"* is governed by the desire to differentiate between "essence-objectivity" and accident-subjectivity" respectively. 

So, essentially, the poet tells us:

Appear to be, as you are.
Or at least appear to be, as you appear.

Alternatively:

As you are, so should you appear
As you appear, so should you be


----------



## cheshire

Thanks!
I'm not yet capable of understanding your kind explanation, but I'm going to get back here as I'm more advanced.

I guess, in a nutshell, the same thing can be expressed either by nominative or instrumental, but the latter can be more "accidental."...right?


----------

