# факт остаётся фактом



## Lemminkäinen

Hi all,

My literary professor gave us this phrase, telling us it was much used by Pravda in the Soviet era. 

But my questions is a grammar one - why is the last word факт in the instrumentalis? I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't understand why the direct object of the sentence 'fact remains fact' shouldn't be in the accusative.


----------



## Crescent

Lemminkäinen said:


> Hi all,
> 
> My literary professor gave us this phrase, telling us it was much used by Pravda in the Soviet era.
> 
> But my questions is a grammar one - why is the last word факт in the instrumentalis? I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't understand why the direct object of the sentence 'fact remains fact' shouldn't be in the accusative.



Hi Lemmi! So nice to see you here again! 

Well, it's quite simple, really. Because the verb ''оставаться'' requires the noun that follows it to be in the instrumental case/творительный падеж. 
i.e. Оставаться кем/чем?  = Факт*ом*..

I hope that explains things a little bit for you!


----------



## cyanista

Lemminkäinen said:


> Hi all,
> But my questions is a grammar one - why is the last word факт in the instrumentalis? I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't understand why the direct object of the sentence 'fact remains fact' shouldn't be in the accusative.


Crescent is absolutely right. My question to you: why do you think it should be in the accusative? Is it in Norwegian? I'm wondering because in German both nouns are in the nominative _(Fakt bleibt Fakt)_, which I consider very logical. "Remains" serves as a sign of equality, kind of. The same with "is" or "is called". 

There must be some logic in the Russian form too, but I fail to see it.


----------



## beclija

As it happens, I don't feel the "logic" of the German structure either. It may not be very logical that it is in the instrumental of all cases, but why should it be in the nominative, which is otherwhise strictly reserved to grammatical subjects. It's not a subject, so I don't expect it in the nominative; it's not a direct object, so why it be in accusative; but the oblique cases all have various often unrelated uses, so the instrumental seems like a fairly good, if somewhat arbitrary, choice.


----------



## Anatoli

The word follows the same logic as "быть" (to be - usually not used in present), "стать" (become), "притвориться" (pretend). They also require instrumental case.

Он лётчик (Nominative).
Он был лётчик*ом*. Он будет  лётчик*ом*.
Он стал лётчик*ом*.
Он притворяется лётчик*ом*.


----------



## Athaulf

Anatoli said:


> The word follows the same logic as "быть" (to be - usually not used in present), "стать" (become), "притвориться" (pretend). They also require instrumental case.
> 
> Он лётчик (Nominative).
> Он был лётчик*ом*. Он будет  лётчик*ом*.
> Он стал лётчик*ом*.
> Он притворяется лётчик*ом*.



This is interesting. In Croatian, we use exclusively nominative in all these expressions. However, if you use instrumental instead,  they sound somehow... strange, but oddly familiar. It's not that usual feeling when someone misses a case and your language instinct screams that it's wrong. Rather, it's a feeling that could be described  as, "This isn't really right, but I understand how someone might feel that it's right." And instrumental is the only case for which I have such a feeling here; any other case except nominative would sound just outright wrong. 

I don't know what (if anything) a linguist would make out of this confused introspection, but I still think it's interesting to note.


----------



## Q-cumber

There is another saying in Russian, which is pretty close by sense: "Факт есть факт" (A fact is a fact). The same construction is used in "Закон есть закон".


----------



## Anatoli

Athaulf said:


> This is interesting. In Croatian, we use exclusively nominative in all these expressions. However, if you use instrumental instead,  they sound somehow... strange, but oddly familiar. It's not that usual feeling when someone misses a case and your language instinct screams that it's wrong. Rather, it's a feeling that could be described  as, "This isn't really right, but I understand how someone might feel that it's right." And instrumental is the only case for which I have such a feeling here; any other case except nominative would sound just outright wrong.
> 
> I don't know what (if anything) a linguist would make out of this confused introspection, but I still think it's interesting to note.


I know what you mean. It's just another proof that Slavic languages may be different but not _that_ different, somewhat along your lines - _we_ don't say so but _they_ do and we understand them.


----------



## Jana337

Athaulf said:


> This is interesting. In Croatian, we use exclusively nominative in all these expressions. However, if you use instrumental instead,  they sound somehow... strange, but oddly familiar. It's not that usual feeling when someone misses a case and your language instinct screams that it's wrong. Rather, it's a feeling that could be described  as, "This isn't really right, but I understand how someone might feel that it's right." And instrumental is the only case for which I have such a feeling here; any other case except nominative would sound just outright wrong.


I love this description. Something is telling me that I should bookmark this because I may need to quote you frequently.


----------



## Q-cumber

Anatoli said:


> Он был лётчик*ом*. Он будет  лётчик*ом*.


This is not that simple. We might say (and we do say): "Он был лётчик (or "налётчик" - a robber  )", "Она была настоящая красавица" (instead of _настоящей красавицей_), "Он был герой", "Граф Калиостро был маг и факир". I was about to explain the subtle conceptual difference between _"был лётчик"_ and _"был лётчиком"_, but I couldn't catch it myself.  Perhaps, "Он был лётчик" is sorta narrative variant, used in "past-in-present" story, so to speak?


----------



## Crescent

Q-cumber said:


> This is not that simple. We might say (and we do say): "Он был лётчик (or "налётчик" - a robber  )", "Она была настоящая красавица" (instead of _настоящей красавицей_), "Он был герой", "Граф Калиостро был маг и факир". I was about to explain the subtle conceptual difference between _"был лётчик"_ and _"был лётчиком"_, but I couldn't catch it myself.  Perhaps, "Он был лётчик" is sorta narrative variant, used in "past-in-present" story, so to speak?


 
Hhhm, that's an interesting point! I have to admit though that the first time I read these phrases: "Она была настоящая красавица" and "Он был лётчик'' I was cringing for quite some time, thinking that I really wouldn't say it like that, and it sounded somewhat..odd. It seems to be the same kind of ''odd'' as Athaulf was talking about in his ingenious (I totally agree, Jana ) post. It's not like ''Oh, that's just awful'' wrong when your ''linguistic senses scream at you'', but it's a kind of thing that you have to sit and contemplate, where by the end of it you reach a conclusion of: even though I wouldn't say it myself, I can see why someone else would.. It's just about tolerable. 

Perhaps, Q-cumber, it has something to do with the fact that in the present tense we can say:  Он - лётчик. Она - настоящая красавица.

And that's the reason why it doesn't sound so ''repulsive'' in the past tense?


----------



## Crescent

cyanista said:


> Crescent is absolutely right. My question to you: why do you think it should be in the accusative? Is it in Norwegian? I'm wondering because in German both nouns are in the nominative _(Fakt bleibt Fakt)_, which I consider very logical. "Remains" serves as a sign of equality, kind of. The same with "is" or "is called".
> 
> There must be some logic in the Russian form too, but I fail to see it.


 
As for the explanation, Cyanista, sometimes I'm just taught to accept things ''as they are''' without questioning them, because these are just gramatical rules, you know? So, for instance, the best thing (maybe) to do here would be to accept that each verb in russian requires their own separate case to be followed after them, and verbs that Anatoli mentioned, such as: _быть, стать_ and of course _o__ставаться_ all take the insturmental case after them.


----------



## Q-cumber

*Crescent*
Here below are some samples I could find:


> "...Говорят, *она была красавица*: стройная, грациозная брюнетка, с приятными и правильными чертами лица, с темно-карими глазами, очаровывающая всех своей добротой и кротостью. Грибоедов называл ее Мадонной Мурильо..."


Sounds pretty well in the context, doesn't it? Perhaps "говорят" (they say) makes the difference?



> – Она милая девушка, – с одобрением проговорил он. – В молодости *она была красавица.* Ее любили рисовать художники. _ (Агата КРИСТИ "Черная смородина)"_





> Елена Покровская,
> Ростовский государственный университет
> Особенности синтаксиса русского языка в модернистском тексте
> (на материале эссе М.И.Цветаевой "Наталья Гончарова")


The phrase is used in the text as a gramatically correct reference, comparing to "Было в ней одно: красавица" by Марина Цветаева.



> ... я уже начинал входить в обыкновенное мое положение, как вдруг вошла графиня, и смущение овладело мною пуще прежнего. В самом деле, она была красавица. Граф представил меня... А.С. Пушкин - "Повести Белкина"


----------



## beclija

Athaulf said:


> This is interesting. In Croatian, we use exclusively nominative in all these expressions. However, if you use instrumental instead,  they sound somehow... strange, but oddly familiar. It's not that usual feeling when someone misses a case and your language instinct screams that it's wrong. Rather, it's a feeling that could be described  as, "This isn't really right, but I understand how someone might feel that it's right." And instrumental is the only case for which I have such a feeling here; any other case except nominative would sound just outright wrong.
> 
> I don't know what (if anything) a linguist would make out of this confused introspection, but I still think it's interesting to note.



I don't really know what to make of it either, but it certainly is interesting.

But are you entirely certain that it would be _exclusively _nominative. Maybe I am mixing up two constructions, but I googled quite a few examples of "pravi se budalom", "bio je predsjednikom" or "postao je predsjednikom" - although always fewer than the same with nominative, over 500 hits for "bio je predsjednikom" looks like more than a common mistake. And, for what that counts, they sound quite OK to me as an advanced non-native speaker. But than, a fact either is or is not a fact and may become a lie when reality changes, so it is a matter of identity, while some Ivan Ivanović still remains Ivan Ivanović when being a "budala" or "predsjednik", so it's maybe more a matter of function or additional features. So, maybe I'm indeed confusing two different constructions.


----------



## gold9999

In A. Pushkin's "Капитанская дочка", there is a phrase, "Ямщик казался мне прав." ("I thought the coachman was right", lit. "The coachman seemed to me right.") My gut feeling is, it's okay for Pushkin, who lived and wrote in early 1800s, and sounds "in sync" with the language of the times. Any modern-day writer who uses the nominative case form "прав"  in this sentence would raise some eyebrows.

"Он был летчик" - makes me think that flying is his passion and an indelible part of his personality.
"Он был летчиком" - tells me only that flying airplanes is his job function.


----------



## cyanista

gold9999 said:


> In A. Pushkin's "Капитанская дочка", there is a phrase, "Ямщик казался мне прав." ("I thought the coachman was right", lit. "The coachman seemed to me right.") My gut feeling is, it's okay for Pushkin, who lived and wrote in early 1800s, and sounds "in sync" with the language of the times. Any modern-day writer who uses the nominative case form "прав"  in this sentence would raise some eyebrows.



???
Are you sure the nominative case is the problem? Would you write "Ямщик казался мне правым"?  I suppose most would go for "Мне казалось, что ямщик прав" or something of the sort.


----------



## gold9999

You are absolutely right, cyanista. To come up with a modern-day equivalent for Pushkin's turn of phrase, we have to change the sentence totally, not just change the case of the noun.

On a different note, "Ямщик казался мне прав" somehow works, in its context - I would echo *Athaulf*'s sentiment from a few posts ago. It's not how I would use it in conversation, but it feels right tucked away in that era, in that locale. Just as J. K. Rowling's _"Oh, Harry Potter! I shall have to see Professor Dumbledor about you", _pronounced with the proper accent, fits the context of its story - but would sound odd if overheard on Princeton University campus.


----------



## Q-cumber

gold9999 said:


> "Он был летчик" - makes me think that flying is his passion and an indelible part of his personality.
> "Он был летчиком" - tells me only that flying airplanes is his job function.



Hmmm...I think you are right! "Он был летчик" emphasizes a much stronger connection between a person and his profession. Exactly!


As to the  "Ямщик" that "казался мне прав", like *cyanista*, I don't see any "verbal abnormality" here. Should we change the phrase a little - "Ямщик оказался прав" - it will look pretty common. By no means I quoted Pushkin's words here as some kind of language standard reference. It was just one among the other samples. All of them sound very natural to me.


----------



## Athaulf

beclija said:


> But are you entirely certain that it would be _exclusively _nominative. Maybe I am mixing up two constructions, but I googled quite a few examples of "pravi se budalom", "bio je predsjednikom" or "postao je predsjednikom" - although always fewer than the same with nominative, over 500 hits for "bio je predsjednikom" looks like more than a common mistake.



Actually, I strongly suspect hyperpatriotic hypercorrection here.  If you observe those examples of "bio je predsjednikom" a bit more closely, you'll notice that they are all in Croatian texts, and none in Serbian and Bosnian ones (you'll find a few outside the .hr domain, but those are obviously written by Croatian authors too). 

Now, this is a bit hard to explain, because it's a matter of sheer native speaker intuition, but putting the predicate into instrumental here sounds to me exactly like the kind of ungrammatical writing that some Croatians occasionally do in a mistaken belief that it makes their language sound more purely Croatian. Many people who take great care to write in the "purest possible" Croatian will always go for alternative vocabulary and grammatical constructions that sound "almost-but-not-quite-right," thinking that their intuition is misleading them. 

This explanation might sound weird and far-fetched, but I think it's correct. And there's another important piece of circumstantial evidence for it: you'll find such constructs only in very formal Croatian writing. The phrase "bio je predsjednik" is of course disproportionally frequent in formal texts like biographies, newspaper articles, etc. You won't find a single instance of the more mundane phrases like, say, "bio je policajac,"  "bila je domaćica," or "bio je vozač" being put into instrumental (just google and see).

As for "pravi se budalom," see below.



> And, for what that counts, they sound quite OK to me as an advanced non-native speaker. But than, a fact either is or is not a fact and may become a lie when reality changes, so it is a matter of identity, while some Ivan Ivanović still remains Ivan Ivanović when being a "budala" or "predsjednik", so it's maybe more a matter of function or additional features. So, maybe I'm indeed confusing two different constructions.


There are some very similar constructions where instrumental is required, and those are the sentences expressing a change inflicted on someone or something.  For example, "učinili su ga _suvišnim_" = "they made him superfluous." Nominative would be definitely incorrect here. Such phrases are quite common in formal writing.

Now, the verbs _praviti_ and _praviti se_ have quite different meanings. The first one is transitive and can be used in the constructions described above, e.g. "pravili su me _budalom_" = "they were making a fool out of me." But, _praviti se_ is intransitive and must be used with nominative: "pravi se _budala_" = "he's pretending to be a fool." So when people write "pravi se _budalom_," I think that they are confusing the transitive and reflexive form of _praviti (se)_. Such confusion happens only in cases like this one; you'll absolutely never hear anyone saying "bio je budalom." It's also infrequent; you'll encounter the nominative form far more frequently.


----------

