# BCS: nouns adding -et-



## Tassos

After successfully tackling the first case of neuters that add syllables (and thanx to everyone for that), now we move to the second, neuters adding -et-.
Here of course, there are much more nouns and here of course, there *are* rules.

Let’s see what R. Alexander says (if you disagree with any of that or have another rule to add feel free):


_Various male personal names._ But apparently nicknames only. So it’s Hrvoje - Hrvoja and Đorđe - Đorđa but Brane – Braneta, Đole – Đoleta and Nole – Noleta.
_Names of the young of animals _
_A number of words for objects_. Here of course I would greatly appreciate if anyone could point out a pattern. Does the rule mean that if I find a neuter in –e depicting an object it will *for certain* add –et- ?

One other thing is the plural. Some nouns have a regular plural without –et- (jaje), others have plurals in –ad (dugme, đubre, krme). Is there a reason for that, or again something you just have to learn with each particular noun?


----------



## Ruselap

Those are actually exceptions. The correct form would be Brane-Brana, Nole-Nola, but Braneta and Noleta are also accepted. It also depends on the variant of BCS.


----------



## DenisBiH

Ruselap said:


> Those are actually exceptions. The correct form would be Brane-Brana, Nole-Nola, but Braneta and Noleta are also accepted. It also depends on the variant of BCS.



Which standard has Brane-Brana and Nole-Nola?


----------



## Anicetus

Ruselap said:


> The correct form would be Brane-Brana, Nole-Nola, but Braneta and Noleta are also accepted. It also depends on the variant of BCS.



Are you sure of that? The forms I would use are Brane-Branē-Brani etc. (like those of nouns ending in -a) with the vocative Brȃne (that is, like nominative, but with a falling accent). I think that's the case in the Croatian standard too. I wouldn't add -et- to any name, though speakers from some other parts of Croatia probably would. I guess it's possible that mainly those dialects which have lost the post-accentual lengths use -et- for masculine names ending in -e, as they wouldn't be able to distinguish between nominative and genitive if they declined them like a-nouns. Anyway, if you want to decline a name like its bearer would, you should know where they are from first. For example, you can be sure that no names characteristic for southern Croatia (such as Ante, Mate, Stipe) add -et- in their declension.

As for neuter nouns adding -et-, most of them fall under R. Alexander's second "rule". I don't think any of them have a regular plural, they all use feminine collective nouns ending in -ad instead of it. These collective nouns are declined like feminine i-nouns, agree with adjectives in feminine singular, but with verbs both in singular and plural. A notable exception is _dijete_, probably the single most used noun adding -et-, which uses _djeca_ for plural. _Djeca_ is a feminine a-noun and agrees with verbs only in plural.

Regarding the third "rule", I'd say the answer is yes if the noun stem doesn't end in a palatal and it isn't one of those which add -en-. However, nouns like these aren't very numerous. Note that _r_ also used to be palatal a long time ago, so there's _more_ (no added syllables), which isn't irregular. And that the consonant cluster _št_ often behaves as if it ended in a palatal (because it often came from _šć_ and _šč_), hence the suffix -ište (as in _igralište, središte, kupalište, gledište_).

There are some nouns with -et- that aren't really predicted by these rules, such as _čeljade, djevojče_ or _momče_. They're not used too often and have the -ad forms for plural, just like young animals. Oh, and one completely unexpected, with -o in nominative: _drvo_. When referring to a tree, it has forms with -et- in singular and _drveće_ or _drvlje_ (collective neuter nouns, behaving like singular in every way) for plural. When _drvo_ is used in the meaning of _wood_ (the substance, material, that is), it has forms without -et-, and it's sometimes used in plural for no apparent reason.

As I've already said, it turns out that all the nouns adding -et- which denote a young animal have lost their regular plural. Why this has happened, I really don't know. Duya said in the other thread that _dugme_ could also have the regular plural forms (although they are less common). As for _jaje_, I assume the reason it has plural forms without -et- could be that its stem ends in a palatal, so after ę turned into e, it could fit in with all the neuter nouns ending in -e in nominative/accusative/vocative without added syllables in declension (like _polje, piće_, all the gerunds...), while nouns like _tel*e*_ clearly stand out. In my dialect, and probably in many others (but not in the standards), _jaje_ is declined without -et- in singular as well.


----------



## Morana_

Hm ... Arent male personal names (Brane etc.) masculine nouns?
Because they sure are in Slovene.


----------



## Anicetus

Of course they are, it's just the thread title that isn't completely accurate.


----------



## Morana_

ok then


----------



## DenisBiH

Anicetus said:


> Are you sure of that? The forms I would use are Brane-Branē-Brani etc. (like those of nouns ending in -a) with the vocative Brȃne (that is, like nominative, but with a falling accent). I think that's the case in the Croatian standard too.



Anicetus, would this make sense to you:

*Bráne  Bránē*
*Brȃne   **Brȃneta  *


----------



## Anicetus

DenisBiH said:


> Anicetus, would this make sense to you:
> 
> *Bráne  Bránē*
> *Brȃne   **Brȃneta  *



It would. I've just thought of an another example I've heard both versions of: the surname _Bare_ (as in _Goran Bare_). Anyway, Tassos' conclusion is good; it's masculine names originally derived as hypocorisms that aren't declined like most masculine nouns (though today some of these are actually given as official names, at least where I live).


----------



## VelikiMag

Tassos said:


> _3. A number of words for objects_. Here of course I would greatly appreciate if anyone could point out a pattern. Does the rule mean that if I find a neuter in –e depicting an object it will *for certain* add –et- ?


Anicetus probably gave you the best answer, if the stem doesn't end in a palatal then yes. The two nouns which come to mind first are _sunce_ and _srce_, so they don't add -et-. However, I see now that diminutives of neuter nouns allow both, even though they end in -ce, e.g. _zvonce, perce, _etc.

Two exceptions which you should remember are _podne_, which has -ev-, and _veče_, which preserves its forms in nominative, accusative and vocative singular, but for other cases including plural uses forms of the feminine noun _večer_.



Anicetus said:


> When _drvo_ is used in the meaning of _wood_ (the substance, material, that is), it has forms without -et-


Not quite, one can say that something was made "_od drveta_".



Anicetus said:


> and it's sometimes used in plural for no apparent reason.


Plural _drva_ is used in the meaning of firewood.

One more word which usually has -et- is _uvo_.


----------



## Anicetus

VelikiMag said:


> Anicetus probably gave you the best answer, if the stem doesn't end in a palatal then yes. The two nouns which come to mind first are _sunce_ and _srce_, so they don't add -et-. However, I see now that diminutives of neuter nouns allow both, even though they end in -ce, e.g. _zvonce, perce, _etc.



Of course, I forgot to mention that _c_ is actually an another one which behaves like a palatal (_otac - oc*e*m_). I've never heard those HJP's forms like _zvonceta_, _zvonca_ is certainly much more common.



> Not quite, one can say that something was made "_od drveta_".



Okay then, I would have said it was "_od drva_". I've made a Google search now and it does confirm both forms are possible, but _od drva_ is much more common. 



> One more word which usually has -et- is _uvo_.



I've really never heard of that one before. _Uvo_ is the same as _uho_, right? Over here it gets no additional syllables in the singular, while the form _ušesa_ is possible along with the usual plural _uši_ in a jocular or pejorative (like referring to large or unusual ears) context.


----------



## VelikiMag

Anicetus said:


> I've made a Google search now and it does confirm both forms are possible, but _od drva_ is much more common.


Google.com gives me the following: "od drveta" - About 1,030,000 results, "od drva" - About 176,000 results. But I see that the latter is usually linked to Croatian sites.



Anicetus said:


> _Uvo_ is the same as _uho_, right?


Yes, in Serbia and Montenegro it is usually _uvo_. The expression "_boli me uvo_" means "_I don't care_", and here you can't say _uho_. There's also a common expression with a diminutive "_svirati/pjevati na uvce_", which means that musicians in a cafe play/sing a song especially for you.
_Doktor za uho, grlo i nos_ remains however unchanged.


----------



## Anicetus

VelikiMag said:


> Google.com gives me the following: "od drveta" - About 1,030,000 results, "od drva" - About 176,000 results. But I see that the latter is usually linked to Croatian sites.



Uh, I've repeated the search now and you're absolutely right. My brain must have ignored the last three zeros in order to see what I wanted to see. Sorry.


----------



## Tassos

Anicetus said:


> As for neuter nouns adding -et-, most of them fall under R. Alexander's second "rule". I don't think any of them have a regular plural, they all use feminine collective nouns ending in -ad instead of it. These collective nouns are declined like feminine i-nouns, agree with adjectives in feminine singular



That is clear. So it would be *dobra mačad - good kittens*, *žuta dugmad - yellow buttons* etc.



Anicetus said:


> but with verbs both in singular and plural.



Can you give me an example of that?



Anicetus said:


> Regarding the third "rule", I'd say the answer is yes if the noun stem doesn't end in a palatal and it isn't one of those which add -en-. However, nouns like these aren't very numerous.



By saying palatal do you mean the "soft" consonants (č,dž,š,ž,ć,đ,j,lj,nj,c,št,žd - this is the list R.Alexander gives, as you can see it includes c)?



Anicetus said:


> Note that _r_ also used to be palatal a long time ago, so there's _more_ (no added syllables), which isn't irregular. And that the consonant cluster _št_ often behaves as if it ended in a palatal (because it often came from _šć_ and _šč_), hence the suffix -ište (as in _igralište, središte, kupalište, gledište_).



Yes, but someone can also argue that none of these nouns is actually an _object_.



Anicetus said:


> There are some nouns with -et- that aren't really predicted by these rules, such as _čeljade, djevojče_ or _momče_. They're not used too often and have the -ad forms for plural, just like young animals.



Can we say that krme falls also in this category or it is considered a "young pig" ?



Anicetus said:


> Oh, and one completely unexpected, with -o in nominative: _drvo_. When referring to a tree, it has forms with -et- in singular and _drveće_ or _drvlje_ (collective neuter nouns, behaving like singular in every way) for plural. When _drvo_ is used in the meaning of _wood_ (the substance, material, that is), it has forms without -et-, and it's sometimes used in plural for no apparent reason.



Need some time to digest that...



Anicetus said:


> As for _jaje_, I assume the reason it has plural forms without -et- could be that its stem ends in a palatal, so after ę turned into e, it could fit in with all the neuter nouns ending in -e in nominative/accusative/vocative without added syllables in declension (like _polje, piće_, all the gerunds...), while nouns like _tel*e*_ clearly stand out. In my dialect, and probably in many others (but not in the standards), _jaje_ is declined without -et- in singular as well.



So we can say that jaje is the only one which add -et- but has a regular plural?



VelikiMag said:


> Two exceptions which you should remember are _podne_, which has -ev-, and _veče_,  which preserves its forms in nominative, accusative and vocative  singular, but for other cases including plural uses forms of the  feminine noun _večer_.
> 
> One more word which usually has -et- is _uvo_.



Will also keep that in mind, thank you. Just found a Youtube video titled *Punktiranje uveta, uha za detaljiste. *


----------



## Anicetus

Tassos said:


> Can you give me an example of that?



Maybe it would be clearer had I said  "with verbs _either_ in singular or plural". So, that means both of these sentences are acceptable:

_Mačad *je* dobra. Mačad *su* dobra._

Having searched a little bit with Google, I'd say agreeing in singular is more common. However, with

_Djeca *su* dobra._

there's no choice, that's the only option.

Note that _momčad_ usually means "sport team" rather than plural of _momče_, so it usually only takes verbs in singular and can even refer to a female team (_djevojčad_ is certainly not used much).



> By saying palatal do you mean the "soft" consonants (č,dž,š,ž,ć,đ,j,lj,nj,c,št,žd - this is the list R.Alexander gives, as you can see it includes c)?



I've never seen "soft consonants" being mentioned in the context of BCMS before, but yes, that's exactly the list you need. (Technically, _c_ /t͡s/ isn't a palatal (the tongue doesn't touch the hard palate while pronouncing it) and _št_ and _žd_ are actually groups of two consonants.) 



> Yes, but someone can also argue that none of these nouns is actually an _object_.



True enough.  There's also _uže_, which does have a stem with a final soft consonant, but gets -et- in singular and _užad_ for plural.



> Can we say that krme falls also in this category or it is considered a "young pig" ?



Its primary meaning is a "young pig".



> Need some time to digest that...



It turns out I was wrong -- _drvo_ is used without -et- when referring to wood only in Croatia.  Here are some examples for good measure:

_Od drveta ne vidiš šumu._ - You can't see the forest for the tree.
_Kucni o drvo!_ - Knock on wood!
_Izdjeljala je sviralu od drva/drveta._ - She carved a pipe out of wood.
_Šetao sam hladovitom stazom pod drvećem._ - I was walking down the shady path under the trees. 



> So we can say that jaje is the only one which add -et- but has a regular plural?



Apparently, there's also _drva_ in the meaning of firewood.


----------



## Sobakus

Anicetus said:


> Over here it gets no additional syllables in the singular, while the form _ušesa_ is possible along with the usual plural _uši_ in a jocular or pejorative (like referring to large or unusual ears) context.



That's quite amusing, because here Russian has moved one step further: the standard is _уши_, while the jocular one is.. _ухи_


----------

