# Я не знаю мужчину, говорящего с моим соседом



## Aphelios

Привет всем!

I was reading a russian grammar book I bought, called "Essential Russian Grammar" (Brian Kemple), and a sentence caught my attention.

Я не знаю мужчину, говорящего с моим соседом.
I don't know the man (who is) talking to my neighbor.

Two things didn't sound right to me.

1) Why мужчинУ? Мужчина, I suppose, is an animated noun, and the accusative case, as well as the genitive, should be мужчины, right?

2) Why говорящЕГО? The second clause doesn't require neither the accusative nor the genitive case, and, as far as I know, it should be "говорящий". Could someone clarify that?

Thanks


----------



## rusita preciosa

1) In this case it is accusative *Я не знаю (кого?/что?) мужчину*...
Sometimes genetive is used in this construction, i.e. *Я не знаю мужчины*, but it sounds more bookish and not used as often.
2) Wrong - it does require accusative: *говорящего* should match *мужчину* in case and number/gender.


----------



## morzh

Aphelios said:


> 1) Why мужчинУ? Мужчина, I suppose, is an animated noun, and the accusative case, as well as the genitive, should be мужчины, right?




The confusion comes from the fact that both accus. and gen. cases answer the question "кого?" with animate nouns. However, both "мужчинЫ" (ген) and "мужчинУ" (acc) couple with the pronoun "кого". The pronoun becomes the same in both cases; however the noun (1st declension) does not do the same.



Aphelios said:


> 2) Why говорящЕГО? The second clause doesn't require neither the accusative nor the genitive case, and, as far as I know, it should be "говорящий". Could someone clarify that?
> 
> Thanks



This is a participle. It agrees with the object/subject it describes in gender, case, number etc. I believe it is the same in your language - when a participle is used as an adjective it agrees in gender and number with the noun modified. (In Spanish, but I believe Portuguese should be the same).

When thinking Russian, add to that also the case - everything should agree.

This is why "говорящий мужчина" becomes ""говорящего мужчину.


----------



## bibax

I should rather say that the confusion comes from the fact that Aphelios believes that the sing. genitive and the sing. accusative are equal for all animate masculine nouns without exception. However it is not true for the noun "мужчина".


----------



## morzh

bibax said:


> I should rather say that the confusion comes from the fact that Aphelios believes that the sing. genitive and the sing. accusative are equal for all animate masculine nouns without exception. However it is not true for the noun "мужчина".



It is exactly what I said (I recalled the 1-st declension, if you look in my post, where it is not true).  It is only true for 2-nd declension masculine nouns.
And the 3-rd does not have any masculines.


----------



## Aphelios

Ура, спасибо всем! 

Indeed, I wrongly thought that the sing. gen. and the sing. acc. were the same to every animated noun.

The second question came from the fact that I automatically 'translate' говорящий into "который говорит", since this type of participle doesn't exist in my native language, so it's hard for me to think the exactly same way russians do.

So, in the very same sentence, if we replace like this:

"Я не знаю мужчину, который (или которого?) говорит с моим соседом", what will be the correct form?


----------



## rusita preciosa

> "Я не знаю мужчину, который (или которого?) говорит с моим соседом", what will be the correct form?


который


----------



## francisgranada

> ... the confusion comes from the fact that Aphelios believes that the sing. genitive and the sing. accusative are equal for all animate masculine nouns without exception. However it is not true for the noun "мужчина".


 
For curiosity - perhaps you will find it useful (or at least interesting ):

In the protoslavic the _accusative_ and the _genitive_ had always different endings (of indoeuropean origin), but during the evolution of the slavic languages, most of the final consonants were lost, inclused case endings. So in some cases the _accusative_ and the _nominative_ "fell together", i.e. became equal. For example, in the past both for the nominative and accusative we had the same form: _человек*ъ*. _

To avoid ambiguity, i.e. to be able to distinguish the _subject_ _(in nominative) _from the _object_ _(in accusative)_ for animated nouns, in these cases the _accusative _was replaced by the _genitive_. With other words, "etymologically" we could say more precisely, that in case of _человек*a*_, today the _genitive_ is used in _function of the accusative. _

But this is not the case of the nouns ending in *-a* (regardless of the gender), because the original cases can still be well distinguished_:_

nominative: мужчин*а*, вод*а *...
genitive: мужчин*ы*, вод*ы *...
accusative: мужчин*y*, вод*y *...

That's why:
_Я знаю мужчин*y *_(original accusative)
_Я знаю человек*a* _(now accusative and genitive, but originally only genitive)


----------



## bibax

> ... since this type of participle doesn't exist in my native language, so it's hard for me to think the exactly same way Russians do.


As you are a Portuguese maybe the Latin translation will help you.

Я не знаю *мужчину, говорящего* с моим соседом.
*Ignoro hominem loquentem cum vicino meo.*
*Ignoro hominem cum vicino meo loquentem.*

*hominem loquentem* =  мужчину говорящего ..... accusative sing.
(homo loquens = мужчина говорящий  ..... nominative sing.)

Я не знаю *мужчину, который говорит* с моим соседом.
*Ignoro hominem qui loquitur cum vicino meo.*


----------



## Rosett

Я не знаю мужчины (никакого конкретного, вообще)
Я не знаю мужчину (того, о котором речь).


----------



## morzh

Rosett said:


> Я не знаю мужчины (никакого конкретного, вообще)



This phrase actually has a narrow sense of  "I am a virgin", as "не знать мужчины" is a phraseme.

Actually there is a plethora of phrasemes using "не знать" and genitive.

Не знать мужчины - to be a virgin
Не знать седла - a bronco, or a wild horse.
Не знать заботы (забот).
Не знать покоя.

etc.


----------



## Aphelios

Francisgrada: Thanks a lot for the explanation! 

Bibax - Portuguese language differs drastically from latin in terms of grammar, in my point of view. We don't have a declension system. We have, however, something 'quite similar' to the говорящий word: falante (from the verb falar - to talk, to speak). But the following phrase would sound extremely awkward:

Eu não conheço o homem, falante com meu vizinho. 

I can completely comprehend, by the way, why "Я не знаю мужчины" sounds like "I'm a virgin" when a woman says it, haha.

 Благодаря вам, the subject is now fixed in my mind: 

1) the participle "ю/ящий" does decline in the other clause, matching the noun it refers to.

2) the который only declines if the its clause requires to.

Thanks to all of you


----------



## Rosett

Aphelios said:


> I can completely comprehend, by the way, why "Я не знаю мужчины" sounds like "I'm a virgin" when a woman says it, haha.


Так написано в Библии на русском. О дочерях Лота.


----------



## Maroseika

Aphelios said:


> Благодаря вам, the subject is now fixed in my mind:
> 
> 1) the participle "ю/ящий" does decline in the other clause, matching the noun it refers to.
> 
> 2) the который only declines if the its clause requires to.


The participle complies with it's noun, while the adverb - with it's verb (pairs marked with colour):

Я вижу мужчину, стоящего у магазина.
Мужчина, стоявший у магазина, подошел ко мне.

Мужчина, о котором мне рассказывали, был высок.
Мужчины, которому я задал вопрос, уже не было.


----------



## Demonic_Duck

morzh said:


> Не знать мужчины - to be a virgin


I assume this phrase can only be applied to women? Or gay men I guess...


----------



## morzh

In Russian tradition  it is applied to women. 

I won't even go into what's applied to gay men


----------



## Memphis9489

Rosett said:


> Я не знаю мужчины (никакого конкретного, вообще)
> Я не знаю мужчину (того, о котором речь).



When I was just starting to learn Russian, many years ago, our instructor taught us that the object of a negative sentence is always placed in the genitive.

In other words, it would be:

Я знаю мужчину. (accusative)

but ...

Я не знаю мужчины. (genitive)

Years later, after further study, I was noticing that Russians do not always put the object of a negative sentence in the genitive.

For instance, I would have said ...

Я не читал книги. (genitive because of the negation)

But, most Russians would probably say ...

Я не читал книгу. (accusative)

And yet, sometimes they _do _use the genitive in negative sentences. My instructor was obviously not correct in teaching us that *all *direct objects of negative sentences take the genitive. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

It's not clear to me when to use the genitive and when to use the accusative.

In addition, I have noticed that this dilemma only exists for _NEGATIVE _sentences - _not _for sentences in the affirmative.


----------



## morzh

Memphis9489 said:


> When I was just starting to learn Russian, many years ago, our instructor taught us that the object of a negative sentence is always placed in the genitive.
> 
> In other words, it would be:
> 
> Я знаю мужчину. (accusative)
> 
> but ...
> 
> Я не знаю мужчины. (genitive)
> 
> Years later, after further study, I was noticing that Russians do not always put the object of a negative sentence in the genitive.
> 
> For instance, I would have said ...
> 
> Я не читал книги. (genitive because of the negation)
> 
> But, most Russians would probably say ...
> 
> Я не читал книгу. (accusative)
> 
> And yet, sometimes they _do _use the genitive in negative sentences. My instructor was obviously not correct in teaching us that *all *direct objects of negative sentences take the genitive. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.
> 
> It's not clear to me when to use the genitive and when to use the accusative.
> 
> In addition, I have noticed that this dilemma only exists for _NEGATIVE _sentences - _not _for sentences in the affirmative.



1. Your instructor simplified the matter.
2. Both ways are used and most of the time, at least when spoken, they sound normal. I am not sure whether there is a rigid requirement for acc. vs gen. Most time it is a matter of style one chooses while speaking.
3. There are (as mentioned here before) stable expressions (like that one about knowing no man) that actually require genitive. Changing this to accusative will change the meaning to an entirely different one.

What can I say? Russian is complicated. Like people, like language.


----------



## bibax

Interestingly Czech is quite similar to Russian in this respect.

In the 19th century the direct object in the negative sentences was nearly always in genitive (so-called negative genitive). Now the negative genitive is rare and bookish in Czech, e.g. nemám peněz (gen. pl., bookish) vs. nemám peníze (acc. pl.) _= I have no money_. Generally we do not feel any difference in meaning.

In the affirmative sentences there is a certain difference in meaning between the accusative and the genitive (called partitive genitive) used as a direct object.

I think similar difference is in Russian, too.

Nanos vodu! = Наноси воду! = _Bring water (and not something else)!_
Nanos vody! = Наноси воды! = _Bring some water!_

Наноси воды, сухой травы натаскай! _(both direct objects are in genitive)_
... но воды носить не стала, не стала таскать сухую траву. _(gen. and acc.)_
Разжигай костёр, наноси воды и почисти картошку, ... _(gen. and acc.)_

The partitive genitive is also present in some Romance languages, like French (le pain vs. du pain), but not in Spanish.


----------



## morzh

Again, when we are talking of part vs. whole coupled with Gen. vs. Accus., we are talking actually about the Partitive case.

However it usually related to inanimate objects, and so does your example with "наноси воды".
Classic example of that that many people quote is with "чай":
"Хочешь чаю?"
"Налей чаю".
"Поставь чай".

However, your example 1) does not relate to negatives, 2) has no bearing on the subject of discussion, as we discuss animate objects.
That changes everything.


----------



## Rosett

memphis9489 said:


> it's not clear to me when to use the genitive and when to use the accusative.
> 
> In addition, i have noticed that this dilemma only exists for _negative _sentences - _not _for sentences in the affirmative.


Там, где по-английски артикль в ед.числе -по-русски будет вин.падеж.
Если артикля нет -может быть род. падеж.


----------

