# Где жить-то будем ?



## MAROUSSE

Hello, I found that expressions lately : 
"Где жить-то будем ?"
I suppose it is equal to "где мы будем жить ?"
Is it just idiomatic ? Is there another verb which can be used the same way (with "-то")


----------



## Awwal12

The -то particle creates additional contrastive emphasis on "жить". The expression is close to "где жить будем?", where "жить" is emphasized in a similar manner merely by word order and intonation. It's also close to "жить-то где будем?" (intonation and the distribution of communicative weight may vary here).


MAROUSSE said:


> Is there another verb which can be used the same way (with "-то")


Practically everything can be used with "-то" (verbs, nouns, pronouns, adjectives...), just bear in mind that it's sensitive to the general communicative structure of the sentence and that its exact function varies. In some particular contexts it just adds a slight emphasis to the whole sentence ("я починил телевизор-то"), sometimes it's strongly contrastive ("я-то знаю, где я буду жить, а ты?").


----------



## Vadim K

I would say that -то particle in Russian often adds a touch of irritation to the speaker's words.


----------



## Awwal12

Vadim K said:


> I would say that -то particle in Russian often adds a touch of irritation to the speaker's words.


There's some correlation, but overall it strongly depends on the context.


----------



## MAROUSSE

I Thank both of you very much. It is rather clear and very interesting. I will remember "insistance" or "irritation". I love the Russian language... Thanks.


----------



## nizzebro

I would say that '-то' is merely a topic particle as is, but used only colloquially in dialogues - as a way to switch the partner's attention to the phrase  - or single word (that carries a self-sufficient semantics), marked by this particle.


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> I would say that '-то' is merely a topic particle as is


I don't think so. Note that 1) usually the topic isn't marked with it and sometimes it even cannot be; 2) usually "-то" not only marks the topic, but also contrasts it to something else.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> 1) usually the topic isn't marked with it and sometimes it even cannot be;


Hmm. Maybe we have different definitions of 'topic' in this case. What I mean is a 'switcher' that can be approximated by English introductory phrases 'as for,' 'speaking of' or 'in case of'. It doesn't imply a totally new information; it only sets a limiting condition for the following statement; in this sense, I do not see anything that prevents me to call -то a topic particle.

As for the sentence "я починил телевизор-то", it exhibits a shift.  The consecutive version would be "(А )телевизор-то я починил", but  the speaker moves the comment ('починил') to the front, adding 'телевизор-то' as an afterthought-like annotation. The reason of this is some modality such as an emotional state of the speaker, his intention to give the sense of 'починил' first: '_Починил _я его - этот ваш телевизор'.


----------



## Sobakus

nizzebro said:


> Hmm. Maybe we have different definitions of 'topic' in this case. What I mean is a 'switcher' that can be approximated by English introductory phrases 'as for,' 'speaking of' or 'in case of'.
> 
> As for the sentence "я починил телевизор-то", it exhibits a shift


Yes, it's a straightforward topic marker, which in English is typically expressed with various lexical topic switches, and in Romance languages will correspond to the various dislocation constructions, especially the so-called hanging topic and clitic dislocation, e.g. _la télé, je l'ai réparée_ (I don't know French, so can't translate the other sentence). And like with English and Romance, the same particle/construction can indicate contrastive topic as long as it's dislocated to the left. In the TV example it's dislocated to the right to avoid this interpretation, otherwise you'd expect something like "...but the microwave is toast".


----------



## Awwal12

Sobakus said:


> Yes, it's a straightforward topic marker


I'm sorry, but it's not a satisfactory definition. Yes, -то seem to always mark the topic (or some sorts of thetic sentences in certain situations), but it doesn't mark just any topic or even any topic switching, which is quite easy to prove by contradiction. Consider:
В норе жили волчица и её волчата. Волчица вышла из норы.
In the first sentence, the topic is, by definition, "нора" and in the second the topic is "волчица" (so the topic has switched as well). However, appearance of "-то" here would simply make no sense outside of some wider context (presuming some preceding and/or following information). That's why it's not just a topic marker but a contrastive topic marker (which typically contrasts the topic to some subsequent information: cf. "я-то знаю, где буду жить, а ты?") or an emphatic topic marker (which just emphasizes the topic, like in "где жить-то будем?", or puts the stress on the whole thetic sentences of certain composition, like in "я починил телевизор-то"; curiously, in "я починил телевизор" you fundamentally cannot modify the verb with -то).


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> That's why it's not just a topic marker but a contrastive topic marker (which typically contrasts the topic to some subsequent information: cf. "я-то знаю, где буду жить, а ты?") or an emphatic topic marker (which just emphasizes the topic, like in "где жить-то будем?", or puts the stress on whole thetic sentences of certain composition, like in "я починил телевизор-то")


I agree; in principle, this is a question of categorization, which can go even further.
Anyway, there is one curious aspect:  if we take the sentence 'Телевизор я починил' on its own,
we get two possible readings depending on the emphasis - 1)As for the telly, I have it fixed; 2) The telly is what I have fixed.
But, -то excludes such prosody variation, acting purely grammatically. And, (1) actually contains a gap that could be marked by a dash - which can be seen as a prototype of '-то')

As for thetic sentences, it is a broad topic, I'd only say that, to my opinion, such discourse-level perspective does not break anything of informational structure on the sentence level, in regard to the associativity of -то; it is hard for me to see it as somehow referencing not only телевизор but the whole statement.


----------



## Vovan

nizzebro said:


> "я починил телевизор-то" <...> "(А )телевизор-то я починил"


My thoughts exactly! The emphatic "-то" is more or less synonymous with the introductory "а":
_Где жить-то будем? = А жить будем где? _ ("жить-то" = "а жить")​_Я починил телевизор-то. = А телевизор я починил._​_Куда ходил-то? = А ходил - куда?_​_Как мне горько-то, горько-то в ту пору было! _(Салтыков-Щедрин, Невинные рассказы.) = _А горько мне как, горько в ту пору было! _​


----------



## Awwal12

Vovan said:


> _Я починил телевизор-то. = А телевизор я починил._


Nope. These convey different messages.
А телевизор я починил > As for the TV set, I fixed it.
Телевизор-то я починил > As for the TV set, I fixed it, BUT...
Я починил телевизор-то > But I did fix the TV set.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> Телевизор-то я починил > As for the TV set, I fixed it, BUT...


As well as: (Well,) BUT, as for the TV set, I did fix it.  

Still, I would say, that your version (with починил focused) is, so to speak, a 'normal', non-biased one, while the above treats телевизор as an option chosen from a set of other objects that have been being_ fixed_ - and, the same can be true for  'А телевизор я починил'  - even though, the latter can as well mean 'as for the TV,  fixing it was my action'.

Generally speaking, I'd say that concepts as 'restrictive', 'contrastive' or 'emphatic' are a bit dangerous in that sense that everything is either way restricted and contrasting, the point is the domain it is restricted to or contrasting with.


----------



## Sobakus

Awwal12 said:


> I'm sorry, but it's not a satisfactory definition.


Nobody in their right mind would think that "Yes, it's a straightforward topic marker" is supposed to be a satisfactory definition. Please don't make up silly strawmen to defeat and come out right. What you need to say is agree with my statement that it's a topic marker, and then restrict, elaborate and improve on it instead of making it look like what I said is somehow incorrect and that I supposedly failed at being right.


----------



## Vovan

Awwal12 said:


> А телевизор я починил > As for the TV set, I fixed it.
> Телевизор-то я починил > As for the TV set, I fixed it, BUT...
> Я починил телевизор-то > But I did fix the TV set.


They may convey these messages, but other messages are possible, too:
_Мы вполне можем посмотреть кино и дома - телевизор-то я починил (=я починил телевизор-то). _(No "but" before or after the utterance. No "as for", either. Essentially, "*-то*" here means "*because*". )​
As for a possible change of "-то" to "а", here's one such real-life situation:
_      А:         Так, сгоревшую технику всю выбрасываем - плитку, чайник, старый телевизор..._​_Б (var .1):  А телевизор я починил - зачем его выбрасывать? _​_Б (var.2) :  Телевизор-то я починил - зачем его выбрасывать?_​_Б (var.3) :  Я починил телевизор-то - зачем его выбрасывать?
_​


----------



## nizzebro

Vovan said:


> _Мы вполне можем посмотреть кино и дома - телевизор-то я починил (=я починил телевизор-то). _(No "but" before or after the utterance. No "as for", either. Essentially, "*-то*" here means "*because*". )


I'm not sure whether 'because' can be projected onto '-то'; I'd rather say this meaning of cause is encapsulated into that dash between two predicates. Replacing it with a colon makes it clearer:
_Мы вполне можем посмотреть кино и дома: телевизор-то я починил._
I think this ordering works like apposition, and _телевизор-то я починил, _placed last, itself creates a causal link.
However, '-то' indeed loses the sense of a topic particle in this position - only emphasizes the object as some sort of 'reminder'.
Still, it looks as an adjacent function.


----------



## Awwal12

Sobakus said:


> Nobody in their right mind would think that "Yes, it's a straightforward topic marker" is supposed to be a satisfactory definition. Please don't make up silly strawmen to defeat and come out right. What you need to say is agree with my statement that it's a topic marker, and then restrict, elaborate and improve on it instead of making it look like what I said is somehow incorrect and that I supposedly failed at being right.


A topic marker is something that serves mainly to mark out the topic (e.g. Japanese -wa), isn't it? Sorry, but in that case calling -то a topic marker seems to make as much sense as calling -ть a verbal marker. It isn't informative and in the end it's simply misleading.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> A topic marker is something that serves mainly to mark out the topic (e.g. Japanese -wa), isn't it? Sorry, but calling -то a topic marker seems to make as much sense as calling -ть a verbal marker. It isn't informative and in the end it's simply misleading.


I fully agree that -то is not such a general function - otherwise we would use  it everywhere instead of word order change.
Its (-то) use is mostly limited to that is known to the speaker but not from the context, i.e. not something introduced in previous sentences, but rather 'external',  common, or already known things (for many cases related to the former, context-dependent usage, we have also a remarkable particle же - but indeed contrastive).

But anyway, these are topic particles, as their primary function is to select into the context something already known and use it  as a conditioning frame for the following actual assertion (the comment). Whenever the -то -marked word is in the final position, in most cases this can be easily analysed as an apposition caused by moving  the comment to the front for emphasis.


Btw, there is also -mo in Japanese,  a counterpart of -wa, which works as 'also' but still is a topic particle according to the logic above.

Иван-то ходил в кино. - Иван is definitely a topic, even though with some admixture (since it may be both 'as for him' and 'he, not other guy')

Иван ходил в кино. - may be a topic, may be not - depending on the context.


----------



## Vovan

nizzebro said:


> However, '-то' indeed loses the sense of a topic particle in this position - only emphasizes the object as some sort of 'reminder'.


Actually, I _am _of the opinion that "-то" an emphatic particle in its main function:
_А: Я знаю, как это делается._​_Б (var. 1): Ты-то знаешь, а вот остальные - нет._​_Б (var. 2): (Уж) ты-то знаешь!_​
But syntactically, such particles ("то-", "ведь", etc.) are really ambiguous - e.g. they can introduce reasons:



> _*ведь *частица и союз_
> Употребляется для усиления основного содержания высказывания (предположения, утверждения, вопроса и т. п.).
> _— Слушай, Влас! Ведь ты честный человек? да?_ Салтыков-Щедрин, Пошехонская старина.​_*<...>*_
> Присоединяет предложение, служащее обоснованием мысли первого предложения.
> _Как музыке идти? Ведь вы не так сидите._ И. Крылов, Квартет.​https://classes.ru/all-russian/dictionary-russian-academ-term-6014.htm



Also, they can introduce a new topic - as in the OP's sentence, which can be expanded like this:
_Это всё хорошо, но где жить-то будем? Об этом ты подумал?_​


----------



## nizzebro

Actually, I _am _of the opinion that "-то" an emphatic particle in its main function:


Vovan said:


> _А: Я знаю, как это делается.
> Б (var. 1): Ты-то знаешь, а вот остальные - нет._





Vovan said:


> Also, they can introduce a new topic - as in the OP's sentence, which can be expanded like this:
> _Это всё хорошо, но где жить-то будем?_


These two both comply with the function of a topic particle. _Ты _is a new topic in regard to the 'slot' of the subject of _знать - _just because _Я _was used right before that. That is exactly their function - to rewrite the 'default value' for any type of  predicate argument: subject, direct object, indirect object, into your 'memory buffer', for subsequent use.


----------



## Sobakus

Awwal12 said:


> A topic marker is something that serves mainly to mark out the topic (e.g. Japanese -wa), isn't it? Sorry, but in that case calling -то a topic marker seems to make as much sense as calling -ть a verbal marker. It isn't informative and in the end it's simply misleading.


All right, I think I understand. No, -то isn't a _morphological _topic marker in the sense of the Japanese -wa, insofar as Russian isn't a topic-prominent language, where topic and comment are as grammaticalised as subject and object cases (and their morphological markers) in languages like Russian. It _is_ a topic marker in the framework of _Information structure_, which every language (even every system of signs) makes use of. It marks the topic in the same way that underlined expressions in English _as for the telly, about the telly (, I fixed it)_ do. They cannot be mapped directly onto the grammatical system of Japanese, but I'd wager a bet that 95 out of 100 marked topics of Russian or English will be morphologically expressed with a topic particle in Japanese.


----------



## nizzebro

Sobakus said:


> insofar as Russian isn't a topic-prominent language


Except if we consider word ordering as a way to _organize syntax_ (which is the definition given by that wiki article).


----------



## Sobakus

nizzebro said:


> Except if we consider word ordering as a way to _organize syntax_ (which is the definition given by that wiki article).


No, Russian is not a topic-prominent language by the definition of a topic-prominent language, which should allow no ambiguity of consideration. Russian word order is sensitive to information structure, but that is true for every single language in existence, and probably every sign system in general. The article uses "syntax" probably to mean morphosyntax; it specifically doesn't mean "word order", as explained in the last sentence of the introduction.


----------



## Vx123

Догадка (доказать не могу, но и контрпримеров пока не нашел) :
-то = сокращение от слова только (в смысле: "внимание: ты только забыл/не знаешь о том, что...").

Где жить-то будем = Ты только не подумал о том...

А телевизор-то я починил = У меня только одна маленькая поправка к твоей картине мира: телевизор уже отремонтирован.

Ты-то знаешь, а остальные- нет = Ты только знаешь, но забыл о том, что ...

Во всех случаях, похоже, смысл примерно такой: внимание, у тебя маленькая ошибка в рассуждениях или знаниях, исправляю...


----------



## nizzebro

Vx123 said:


> -то = сокращение от слова только


А чем вас указательное 'то'-то не устраивает? (которое, скорее всего, также и в основе 'толико', так как функциональные слова в большинстве порождены примитивами - раньше мышление людей было гораздо 'абстрактнее', чем у сегодняшних нас, рабов готовых структур).


----------



## Vx123

Я заметил, что -то обычно подчеркивает небольшую единичную поправку (А телевизор-то и радио-то я починил -- не работает), поэтому и предположил, что -то связано с толико (немного) или только.
Доказать этимологию не могу, вполне возможно  что и не связано.


----------



## nizzebro

Vx123 said:


> что -то обычно подчеркивает небольшую единичную поправку


Эта поправка и есть переключение темы в дискурсе - вы берёте внимание собеседника и обращаете его с 'этого' на 'то'.


----------



## Sobakus

Vx123 said:


> Догадка (доказать не могу, но и контрпримеров пока не нашел) :
> -то = сокращение от слова только (в смысле: "внимание: ты только забыл/не знаешь о том, что...").


Нет сомнений, что это простое местоимение "то" - в Болгарском оно вообще превратилось в определённый артикль, а в некоторых севернорусских говорах склоняется по родам и падежам.


----------

