# Languages in which the Accusative changes into the Genitive in negation



## LilianaB

*Moderator note: Merger of two threads with the same topic. This is the start of the first thread. Second thread starts at #21.
*
I was just wondering if in any Indo-European languages, except some Slavic languages, the Accusative changes to the Genitive in negation in certain contexts? Comments on Slavic languages are welcome too.


----------



## Explorer41

As far as I know, French does so with the verb "avoir" ("to have"). The preposition "de" is close to the Slavic Genitive cases.


----------



## CapnPrep

LilianaB said:


> Comments on Slavic languages are welcome too.


There are already threads devoted to Slavic languages, both individually and collectively, for example:
All Slavic languages: genitive after negated verbs



Explorer41 said:


> As far as I know, French does so with the  verb "avoir" ("to have"). The preposition "de" is close to the Slavic  Genitive cases.


With all transitive verbs, not only with the verb _avoir_.


----------



## Explorer41

CapnPrep said:


> With all transitive verbs, not only with the verb _avoir_.


Oh! That is, I should say, "je ne lis pas de ta lettre" and "je n'ai pas lu de ta lettre"?


----------



## CapnPrep

Explorer41 said:


> Oh! That is, I should say, "je ne lis pas de ta lettre" and "je n'ai pas lu de ta lettre"?


No, but you shouldn't say that with _avoir_ either (_Je n'ai pas de ta lettre_ )…  The change to _de_ only occurs with the indefinite articles: _J'ai une lettre, je lis une lettre, j'ai lu une lettre →_ _
Je n'ai pas de lettre, je ne lis pas de lettre, je n'ai pas lu de lettre_.​


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Explorer41 said:


> Oh! That is, I should say, "je ne lis pas de ta lettre" and "je n'ai pas lu de ta lettre"?



No, because it only works when an indefinite article ( un / des ) is used in the affirmative sentence :

J'ai lu *une* lettre (singular) / *des* lettres (plural)       Negation : Je n'ai pas lu *de* lettre(s)

but : J'ai lu *ta* lettre    Negation : Je n'ai pas lu *ta* lettre.     

         J'ai lu *la* lettre    Negation : Je n'ai pas lu *la* lettre.  ( definite article)


----------



## Explorer41

Thank you!


----------



## LilianaB

CapnPrep said:


> No, but you shouldn't say that with _avoir_ either (_Je n'ai pas de ta lettre_ )…  The change to _de_ only occurs with the indefinite articles:_J'ai une lettre, je lis une lettre, j'ai lu une lettre →_ _
> Je n'ai pas de lettre, je ne lis pas de lettre, je n'ai pas lu de lettre_.​



In fact that might be true about Russian as well. The change from the Accusative to the Genitive in Russian is quite complicated, or perhaps unpredictable at times if you want to base it on any grammatical rules. In Polish the Accusative always changes to the Genitive in such cases with negation. In Russian it requires a partitive use or indefinite use, although there are no articles in Russian. The context may be definite or indefinite, though. I think this is it. I usually use the case intuitivelly, but I think this might be a rule. Of course, exceptions exist based on tradition.


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> In Russian it requires a partitive use...


This surely is the reason for the development in both Russian and French as in Russian and in Latin the genitive is (was) used to express the partitive.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you. What about negation, because in Russian the Genitive is required in negation not only when it is a partitive use.


----------



## francisgranada

I don't know if this fits your question, but etymologically even what is now accusative was originally a genitive in case of animated masculine nouns in some Slavic languages. That's why the coincidence between the accusative and genitive in theese cases, eg. _vižu čeloveka_ (I see the man - accusative) and _ot čeloveka_ (from the man - genitive). With other words, the genitive (probably once in partitive use) has substituted the accusative entirely. The reason was to avoid ambiguity, because after the reduction of case endings the nominative and the accusative fell together, both resulting in *_čelovekЪ._


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you, Francisgranada. No, it is not as simple in Russian. This may just explain a part of the problem or phenomenon.


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> That's why the coincidence between the accusative and genitive in theese cases, eg. _vižu čeloveka_ (I see the man - accusative) and *ot čeloveka* (*from the man* - genitive).


Isn't that rather an etymological ablative? In Slavic, genitive and ablative were merged when the PIE ablative assumed the role of the genitive.


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> Thank you. What about negation, because in Russian the Genitive is required in negation not only when it is a partitive use.


My knowledge of Russian grammar is limited, so tell me if I am mistaken. But if the situation in Russian resembles the situation in French where "de" as genitive-substitute is used when negating a transitive verb with indefinite direct object because the negated indefinite becomes logically a partitive:
_I didn't write a letter = none *of* all the letters in the world was written by me._
_I didn't drink any water = none *of* all the water in the world was drunken by me.
_At least in French, this is the logic behind the partitive "de".


----------



## CapnPrep

Here are a couple of threads specifically about Russian:
Accusative <--> Genitive in negated sentences
The Accusative and Genitive with Negation in Russian

And now that we are in EHL, maybe I can provide the long quotation I promised in my earlier post:


			
				Lunt (1982 said:
			
		

> XXIa.5 The genitive is regularly required as the direct object of a  negated verb (III 9). Yet the accusative does occur, especially in  colloquial language. No one has managed to delimit this usage, and many  of the statements grammarians have made are demonstrably faulty. Here  are some general considerations.
> The accusative direct object of a negated verb ordinarily designates  something quite concrete; it is very clearly specified and really the  logical focal point of the sentence. Most commonly it will be a person  (specified by name or status), but it may be a thing that is defined  either by concretizing modifiers (like "this, my") in the same sentence  or else by its general importance and previous specification in the  larger context. For example:Вы́ не встреча́ли *Та́ню* и *Пе́тю*?
> О́н не понима́ёт *жёну́*.
> Я́ не чита́л *ёго́ статью́*.​This specific and emphatic accusative is  very likely to be put at the beginning of the sentence as a further  underlining of its logical importance:*Письмо́* я́ не получи́л.
> *Рабо́ту* я ещё́ не ко́нчил.​Note here the English use of "the"; translation omitting this definitizer would be inaccurate. Cf. _Письма _я не получил — a more general denial 'I didn't get _a _(_any_) letter'.
> The direct object of an infinitive that is governed by a negated verb  may be genitive, but in today's language it is more likely to be  accusative (V 12). Use of the genitive tends to strengthen the negation,  but the nuance of meaning is insignificant.Я́ не могу́ посла́ть *телегра́мму*, не́т де́нег.
> Я́ не хочу́ посыла́ть *откры́тки* все́м знако́мым, э́то ску́чно.​The use of the accusative is extremely rarely _required_  after a negated transitive verb, but there are instances where it is  preferred. The genitive then sounds somewhat stilted. On the other hand,  there are a great many contexts that do require the genitive. The  foreigner is safer to use the genitive always, running the risk of  sounding stilted from time to time, but avoiding the greater risk of  being downright wrong.


----------



## LilianaB

To tell you honestly Berndf, I don't know. I use the cases intuitively in Russian. The Genitive is used instead of the Accusative in the Affirmative when used partitively. This is 100%. With negation it is more complicated. I personally use the Genitive more than the Accusative based on intuition, and many people use it this way. I do not know exactly why sometimes the Accusative is used whereas at other times the Genitive is used. I think it may be based on convention, mostly. Some expressions sound better with the Accusative, whereas other constructions sound better with the Genitive. I have been trying to find out some rules, but so far I have not been able to find any definite rules. In Polish the Accusative changes into the Genitive always with negation.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> Isn't that rather an etymological ablative? In Slavic, genitive and ablative were merged when the PIE ablative assumed the role of the genitive.



The sources I have consulted (some years ago) explain the origin of the accusative in cases I mentioned above as being originally genitive, which seems to me logical. But it may not contradict to what you say, the merging of ablative and genitive occured certainly before, thus the accusative could be substituted by the actual genitive (even if this genitive derives from a former IE ablative). 

Maybe the preposition_ ot (_from) is misleading, but see e.g. _dom čeloveka_ (the house of the man) a "pure" genitive, ending in *-a* in many Slavic languages, including Old Church Slavonic. On the other hand, in the Old Church Slavonic the accusative in theese cases was still equal to the nominative (ending in -*Ъ  *and not in _-a_ as in the modern Slavic languages).


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you CapnPrep. This is the best and the most logical summary of the problem I have ever seen.


----------



## francisgranada

In Slovak, normally the accusative is used, but there are some examples for the partitive genitive as well (at least in the colloquial speach), e.g.:  

_Kúpim chleba _- "I buy bread"
(chlieb - "bread", nom., acc.;   chleba - "of bread", gen.)

_Nemám poňatia _- "I have no idea"
etc ...


----------



## Explorer41

LilianaB said:


> The Genitive is used instead of the Accusative in the Affirmative when used partitively. This is 100%.


It's not that easy. For example, we can't translate the partitive Italian "inventare delle parole" (I have seen this phrase once) as "изобретать слов" in Russian (unfortunately?). Also, it's hard to define when the expressed meaning should be partitive, and where it shouldn't. Sometimes it's hard to understand what does the word "partitivity" precisely mean. Consider, for example, "чего ты хочешь?"

*CapnPrep*,
please correct the spelling mistakes in the citation . The words "понимаёт", "жёну" and "ёго" don't exist; there are words "понимает", "жену" and "его".


----------



## LilianaB

*Moderator note: Merger of two threads with the same topic. This is the start of the second thread.*

I am interested in which languages, which have declensions, the Accusative changes into the Genitive when you use negation. What is the source of this change?


----------



## LiseR

Russian would be one of them.
Latvian also uses negation in the Genitive the language since Latvian, just like Russian, doesn't have a verb which directly translates as "to have:, the third person form is used to express ownership, as :  

Man ir zīmulis (I have a pencil)  -Nominative
Man nav ​zīmuļa ( I dont have a pencil) - Genitive


​


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, But in Russian it is not that simple. It sometimes changes into the Genitive, at other times it does not. Lithuanian also falls into this category. I think Latvian also has the Accusative in the affirmative and the Genitive in negation. Doesn't it?
I am also interested why it changes. Thank you, Lise.


----------



## LiseR

True, I completed with info about Latvian


----------



## LiseR

So the tu rule is Dative (noun + pronoun) + Negative verb _būt _(3rd person) + Genitive ​


----------



## LilianaB

Let me just post a Polish example because there are more users who speak Polish here, or Russian, than Baltic languages: 
Mam ksiazke (Acc) and Nie mam ksiazki (Gen) I have a book and I don't have a book.
Mam drzewo na opal i nie mam drzewa. I have wood for heating and I don't have wood. Acc-Gen.


----------



## LiseR

Sorry for the offtopic, but do many people in Lithuania speak Polish as well? I mean people of non-Polish ancestry


----------



## Outsider

Although you asked about languages with declensions, I can't help noting that French seems to have a similar phenomenon, where "j'ai un crayon" is negated as "je n'ai pas *de crayon*". French grammar calls this "de" a partitive article, but the preposition "de" most often means "of" or "from".


----------



## LilianaB

I have no idea Lisa. The Lithuanian nobility in the past spoke Polish as well. I have lived most of my life in New York. Going back to the subject -- in Lithuanian: _turiu knyga _(acc). _neturiu_ _knygos _(gen)._ I have a book_ -- _I don't have a book_.


----------



## LiseR

Latvian  Mums nav + Genitive (gladA)  - I don't have a table.
Whatsoever, Genitive in negation is rather optional nowadays,  you can hear many people saying “Man nav cita izeja” - I'll use Russian in order for you to notice the difference (“у меня нет другой выход”) or “Man nav nauda” (“у меня нет деньги”)​


----------



## LilianaB

Maybe the Genitive use is disappearing, I have noticed the same thing in some languages, even Russian more often uses the Accusative in negation than before? How did those constructions originate in the first place?


----------



## francisgranada

I think that the explanation/reason for this usage of genitive lies in the so called "partitive genitive", both in the Romance and the Slavic languages. Generally, this kind of genitive, is not used exclusively in negative sentences. E.g. in Slovak:

Kúpim chleba. (lit. "I buy of bread").
 Nekúpim chleba. (lit. "I not buy of bread")

chlieb - bread (nominative/accusative)
chleba - of bread (genitive)

In Slovak, this genitive is not common at all, rather rare or idiomatic, while in some Romance languages (e.g. Italian) is common enough, both in positive and negative sentences.

In case of negation, this construction has an extra "justification" (that's why generally more frequent): it emphasizes the negation. For example:

(French) "je n'ai pas *de *crayon" originally could mean something like "I have none *of* the pencils" (i.e. "not a single pencil", "no pencil at all" etc ...)

(Slovak) "nekúpim chleb*a*" practically means "I don't buy any piece/amount/quantity *of* bread" (i.e. "no bread at all", "not a single piece of bread" etc ...)

Once such construction/principle becomes common (i.e. "grammaticalized"), we are able to understand also constructions like _neturiu_ _knygos_, _nie mam drzewa_ etc...


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, Francis. Talking about Slavic languages, this Genitive is not just a partitive use but a regular form in negation in Polish. In Russian it is more related to the partitive use, and use of indefinite objects.I don't think its use in negation becomes more rare compared the use of the Accusative in Polish, what happens in Russian, or even in some Baltic languages. I don't think it is appropriate to use the Accusative in negation in Polish at all. (in sentences where there is the Accusative in the affirmative sentence)


----------



## Ben Jamin

LiseR said:


> Russian would be one of them.
> Latvian also uses negation in the Genitive the language since Latvian, just like Russian, doesn't have a verb which directly translates as "to have:, the third person form is used to express ownership, as :
> 
> Man ir zīmulis (I have a pencil)  -Nominative
> Man nav ​zīmuļa ( I dont have a pencil) - Genitive
> ​



I think that the genitive negation has no connection with the word “to have”, at least in Polish you use genitive with negation of any verb (see, take, buy, give, and so on). As far as I know Russian, the situation is the same. Maybe this rule can be applied only in Latvian?


----------



## LilianaB

Russian and Latvian do not use the construction with a verb _to have_ to express the state of possessing something: Lithuanian and Polish do. In Russian and Latvian it would be _there is_ _in my possession_, rather than _I have_.  This is why we have the noun in the Nominative and not in the Accusative in affirmative sentences related to possessing in Latvian.


----------



## francisgranada

LilianaB said:


> Hi, Francis. Talking about Slavic languages, this Genitive is not just a partitive use but a regular form in negation in Polish ...


I know, I only tried to explain, that the original sense of this genitive could be partitive as well, but later in some languages it became "grammaticalized", so today its usage is rather a grammatical rule.


----------



## LilianaB

Do you think it is disappearing? Have you noticed that people start using the Accusative in negation in many languages, in place of the Genitive?


----------



## LiseR

The only difference is, that when it comes to possession, in Russian you never use Accusative. In Latvian it's the same thing, but I repeat, you can hear quite many people using Accusative nowadays. Both languages use the verb 'to be'  -  _būt (Lat__vian) _быть (Russian), 3rd person


----------



## LilianaB

You can hear many people use the Accusative in negation, in Russian these days as well, not just as partitive use. Is is considered grammatically correct to use the Accusative instead of the Genitive in Latvian? Added: Sorry, maybe you are right Lisa, not as possession in Russian, but in other examples, where the Accusative is used in the affirmative and the Genitive is usually used in negation, like _I will take X_, _I won't take X_, _give me X_, _don't give me X_.


----------



## LiseR

Of course you can, I meant the possession thing. For example, in Latvian one can hear something like OH _не имеет_ свое _собственноe мнениe (Accusativee)_. In Russian you'd never say that. On the other hand, I hear more and more people using Acc in Russian( so do I sometimes), when they don't talk about possession


----------



## LilianaB

Many people are saying that in Russian these days. I also think this was not acceptable even a few years ago. They would not say it in examples such as _I have a book_ and_ I don't have a book_, but in examples such as _I have my own opinion and I do not have any opinion_ _about it_, it happens.


----------



## merquiades

Outsider said:


> Although you asked about languages with declensions, I can't help noting that French seems to have a similar phenomenon, where "j'ai un crayon" is negated as "je n'ai pas *de crayon*". French grammar calls this "de" a partitive article, but the preposition "de" most often means "of" or "from".



That's a good observation.  I remember when I was studying Russian the teacher had a good rule which always seemed to work:  Qui dit "de" en français, dit "génitif" en russe.

For non-francophones,  "de" has a variety of functions in French including partitives, negations, possession, movement away, plus it also enables compound noun formation and can link two nouns or more together.


----------



## ({[|]})

LilianaB said:


> Many people are saying that in Russian these days. I also think this was not acceptable even a few years ago. They would not say it in examples such as _I have a book_ and_ I don't have a book_, but in examples such as _I have my own opinion and I do not have any opinion_ _about it_, it happens.


No one does. I mean specifically LiseR's example. Maybe you've misheard or misunderstood something... It's always "у меня нет собственного мнения" or "я не имею собственного мнения" (genitive).


merquiades said:


> That's a good observation.  I remember when I was studying Russian the teacher had a good rule which always seemed to work:  Qui dit "de" en français, dit "génitif" en russe.


This way one might "сесть в лужу"... er.. go out of his luck, even in some simplest cases. Well, I was .. er.. a very bad French learner  (I had French as the Foreign Language in my school), but I still remember that it's possible to say "J'ai du lait" or "J'ai acheté du lait" (I'm sure about the second, not so sure about the first, please correct me if I'm wrong), but in Russian, while you can say "я купил молока" (though "я купил молоко" is often used too), the phrases "я покупал молока" or "у меня есть молока" are non-grammatical and absolutely impossible.

But generally I agree, the logics of the two languages are similar.


----------



## merquiades

({[|]});12253604 said:
			
		

> This way one might "сесть в лужу"... er.. go out of his luck, even in some simplest cases. Well, I was .. er.. a very bad French learner  (I had French as the Foreign Language in my school), but I still remember that it's possible to say "J'ai du lait" or "J'ai acheté du lait" (I'm sure about the second, not so sure about the first, please correct me if I'm wrong), but in Russian, while you can say "я купил молока" (though "я купил молоко" is often used too), the phrases "я покупал молока" or "у меня есть молока" are non-grammatical and absolutely impossible.
> 
> But generally I agree, the logics of the two languages are similar.



You're right.  Your French is perfect. With partitive "du" it doesn't always work.  I think I remember the teacher saying to be careful with "du".  But with "beaucoup de", "assez de", "trop de" or plain "de" it worked always.
It's a matter of negatives here I think right?  du-de contrasts acusative-genitive
J'ai du lait - U menia iest molokó
Je n'ai pas de lait - U menia niet moloká
J'ai acheté du lait -  Ia kupil molokó
Je n'ai pas acheté de lait - Ia ne kupil moloká.

Sorry for the lack of Cyrillic keyboard


----------



## ({[|]})

merquiades said:


> You're right.  Your French is perfect. With  partitive "du" it doesn't always work.  I think I remember the teacher  saying to be careful with "du".  But with "beaucoup de", "assez de",  "trop de" or plain "de" it worked always.


Yes, the words "достаточно", "нет" and "много" ("слишком много") always command the Genitive in Russian. 


> It's a matter of negatives here I think right?  du-de contrasts acusative-genitive
> J'ai du lait - U menia iest molokó
> Je n'ai pas de lait - U menia niet moloká
> J'ai acheté du lait -  Ia kupil molokó
> Je n'ai pas acheté de lait - Ia ne kupil moloká.
> 
> Sorry for the lack of Cyrillic keyboard


Yes, "я не купил  молока" is absolutely possible! As well as "я не купил молоко", "я купил  молока" and "я купил молоко". The differences are very hard to  explain... but I see what you mean: my comment was a bit off-topic, which is about negative sentences.   Well, back to the topic.


LilianaB said:


> I am interested in which languages, which have  declensions, the Accusative changes into the Genitive when you use  negation. What is the source of this change?


I have a wild guess, Liliana. I think, it is related to the problem that  it's always more difficult to discuss non-existences than existences of  things (for instance, it is more difficult to deny than to affirm  existence of something). To prove existence, we only have to point at  the object, using its name: here is the table that I use ("я использую  стол")! But what can I do, if there is no table that I use ("я не использую  столов")? There is no thing — therefore, there is no thing's name; all  we can do is take the name of the general notion ("стол", "множество  всех столов") and say, that no random instance *of* this notion (please, note the *of*:  both English "of" and French "de" express the meaning of the Genitive  case — and, say, Russian has no such preposition, it doesn't need it as it has the Genitive case!)  is the table that I use.

Again, to repeat it and to compose an easier formulation: the word, that we take, expresses a general notion, but the thing,  that takes part in the situation, is a random instantiation of this  notion. The instantiation, that takes part in the situation, somehow belongs to the general  notion, the general notion possesses it; the Genitive case is used to  express possession; therefore we may need to use the Genitive case in  order to get a random instance and then to use the random instance in  the situation that we talk about. So, the logic behind the origin of  such Genitive forms looks explainable.

By the way, the same logic could apply to partitives: "я выпил воды": it means that I drank not just the water, but only small amount *of* the water, that somehow belongs to all the water that I think about; the amount is directly related to the water (possession, to analyze it carefully, is nothing but a very generic relation between two objects; this is evident after careful examination of the use of the verbs like "to have" and "avoir" in English and French, of the word "of" and of the Russian Genitive case, all of which express possession).

Another way for the genitive construction in negation to appear might be, as francisgranada said, through the wish of people to intensify negation. For example, by saying that it is not just that the pencil is not in my sight, but even a single part of it isn't. Or, by saying that no single instance of all the pencils is not seen by me. Terrible emotions... 

The two ways might even work together...


LilianaB said:


> You can hear many people use the Accusative in  negation, in Russian these days as well, not just as partitive use. Is  is considered grammatically correct to use the Accusative instead of the  Genitive in Latvian? Added: Sorry, maybe you are right Lisa, not as  possession in Russian, but in other examples, where the Accusative is  used in the affirmative and the Genitive is usually used in negation,  like _I will take X_, _I won't take X_, _give me X_, _don't give me X_.


By the way, I noticed the similar pattern in English, too. I mean the  distinction between ("some", "every", "each") and "any".

For example: "Yes, I have some"/"No, I don't have  any". The word "some" means an indefinite instance: "some pen" is a pen  that I don't know about, that I don't want to know about. The word "any" means a random instance: "any  pen" is just a random pen, any pen you like.

Also: "I did read every message of those that you sent to me" ("Я прочитал каждое сообщение из тех, которые вы мне послали") vs "I didn't read any message of those that you sent to me"  ("Я не прочитал ни одного сообщения из тех, которые вы мне послали").  As far as I understand, the word "each" is a way to refer to the set of  all the instances of the notion, but to describe the properties of  separate instances and not the properties of the whole set, and the word "every" means  "each" instance, but taken in a sequence. Both of them are used in  affirmative sentences, but in negative sentences one has to use the word  "any", that refers to a random instance.

So I think, the logic of the English language resembles the logics of those Slavic and Baltic languages that we discussed, and also the logic of French, and also, as far as I remember, the logic of Finnish.


----------



## LilianaB

Hello Brackets. Please kindly read all my posts before you comment, because I did not say it in relation to the constructions related to possession, such as: _I don't have a book_, but in other constructions where a Genitive is traditionally used.(I am sorry about the name I invented from you, but I really do not not how to refer to you. Otherwise, please kindly suggest how to refer to you) I did not mishear anything. I have absolutely native understanding of Russian (99% -- the highest understanding one can have in any language in matters other than quantum physics and biochemistry type of things. No one understands any language with 100% exactness, right) I had in mind constructions like the ones you have mentioned: "я не купил молока" ,"я не купил молоко". _I did not take the book_, _I did_ _not see the pencil_. _I don't have my opinion about it_.

Sorry, maybe I was not clear enough, it could have been my fault, but I really only meant the kind of constructions mentioned above in this post. I am really interested in this subject so I listen very carefully to what people are saying and it would be even hard to miss. 

See, the problem is that is some Slavic languages you cannot use the Accusative in negation, at all, under no circumstances. In Russian, it depends whether it is partitive use and whether the object is definite or indefinite. however, more and more people start using the Accusative now in constructions where the Genitive was traditionally used. If you compare old movies, some 30 years old films, you would hardly ever here the Accusative in negation, as a general usage, without counting some exceptions related to the partitive use. If you listen or, watch rather, a contemporary talk show people tend to overuse the Accusative. Have you noticed this tendency in Russian and in other languages? 

Going back to the confusing part of my statement about possession, what I meant was that it should traditionally be: _я_ _не имею мнения_ but some people would say more often and often _я не имею мнение. 

_Maybe you have been forming your opinions based on the language of highly educated people in St. Petersburg, where you live, I think. This may be something more regional, but Russian -- not from the former republics.


----------



## ({[|]})

LilianaB said:


> Have you noticed this tendency in Russian


Tendency? Never. But then I'm young  And it's hard to make conclusions about changes in grammar, using movies; some tricks with pronunciation — yes, they can be noticed, but general changes of the language — not, they can't.


LilianaB said:


> Going back to the confusing part of my statement about possession, what I meant was that it should traditionally be: _я_ _не имею мнения_ but some people would say more often and often _я не имею мнение. _


And what I answered was that such construction ("я не имею мнение") looks quite impossible for me; you may have misheard it, because "мнение" and "мнения" sound really similar.


LilianaB said:


> Otherwise, please kindly suggest how to refer to you


You may call me ({|}), if the square brackets break the layout.  All the symbols are present in the US keyboard, they are close to each other — and therefore easy to type.


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, I did not mishear it. I hardly ever mishear things in languages I know well, especially if they keep being repeated over and over again -- I would more often miss something in written language -- misread. What are you basing your observations on, I just wonder. People in your city, movies, or something else? I am just trying to figure out why you haven't noticed that.  

P.S. Sorry about the brackets, but I cannot really find some of those symbols easily on my keyboard, I will look for them.I am not a mathematician, so I hardly ever use them. Plus this name does not have a sound, but never mind. I'll find the symbols.


----------



## ({[|]})

LilianaB said:


> People in your city, movies, or something else?


Mostly 1) people around me (I live in Saint-Petersburg, if it matters; but I believe it does not, it mustn't differ across cities, I believe) and 2) books of the XX and XIX centuries. As for movies, I haven't watched a lot of them, so all I could notice was a pecular pronunciation of the words like "осталось", "удалось" etc (with hard "с" at the end), no grammar or word use pecularities.

As for "мнение"/"мнения", even a native speaker could easily mishear the difference without any context. In fact, I read somewhere that there is no difference in sound between unstressed "е" and "я"; I do not know if it's indeed true, but it's likely.

And also, I would add, that to my mind, the choice between accusative and genitive in Russian is a really complex matter that doesn't boil down to the definite/indefinite thing and partitive meanings; you know, "я не видел книги" might mean "I haven't seen the book" in an appropriate context, and "книга" is not "молоко", you don't operate on a part of it.  In other Slavic languages it may be different, as I see, but I can't argue about those languages.


----------



## LilianaB

Hello, again. I you are forming your opinions based on St.Petersburg's academic circles, and books, I am not surprised you have not heard the constructions I have been talking about. Maybe you can try watching some more trashy shows, or even not that trashy where people from different parts of Russia appear. Many of them are educated people because they even hold quite high positions in the management, but they still lean towards using the Accusative in place of the Genitive in negation.


----------



## ({[|]})

LilianaB said:


> Hello, again. I you are forming your opinions based on St.Petersburg's academic circles, and books,


academic? Not at all! Quite regular circles. By the way, what I wrote was just that: that in the Russian language I know the use of Accusative in negation *is* possible, and as far as I know, it has always been possible. It's hard to tell in what situations it appears, though.


----------



## francisgranada

({[|]});12253873 said:
			
		

> Yes, the words "достаточно", "нет" and "много" ("слишком много") always command the Genitive in Russian ... In other Slavic languages it may be different, as I see, but I can't argue about those languages ...


For example in Slovak, "normally" the accusative is used, so "я не купил молок*а*" would be "ja som nekúpil mliek*o*" (and not _mliek_*a*). But with the words _dosť, niet, mnoho ..._ (достаточно, нет, много ...) always the genitive is used also in Slovak, e.g "nekúpil som dosť mliek*a*". 

Indeed, such constructions are quite understandable from the point of view of other languages, too, finally e.g. in Eglish we say "a lot *of* ...", "a bit *of* ..." or in Spanish "un poco *de* ..." etc. (the words много, lot, bit, poco ... are or take the function of nouns rather than adjectives in these cases, that's why the genitive).



> ... it is related to the problem that it's always more difficult to discuss non-existences than existences of things ... So, the logic behind the origin of such Genitive forms looks explainable ... Another way for the genitive construction in negation to appear might be, as francisgranada said ... The two ways might even work together...


I agree and I think we are speaking about the same thing, though you have expressed it in a much more detailed way .



LilianaB said:


> Hello Brackets. Please kindly read all my posts before you comment, because I did not say it in relation to the constructions related to possession, such as: _I don't have a book_, but in other constructions where a Genitive is traditionally used ...


I think, that from a general point of view of the "logic behind" this kind of genitive, it is irrelevant whether we speak about constructions related to possession or not. For example, in Hungarian the possession is expressed in a quite similar way as in Russian (i.e. “to me is” instead of “I have”), neverthless in Hungarian the nominative case is used, both in positive and negative sentences.


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> I think, that from a general point of view of the "logic behind" this kind of genitive, it is irrelevant whether we speak about constructions related to possession or not. For example, in Hungarian the possession is expressed in a quite similar way as in Russian (i.e. “to me is” instead of “I have”), neverthless in Hungarian the nominative case is used, both in positive and negative sentences.


Would you then agree with out bracket-loving friend (see his remarks in #25) that the origin of the phenomenon is most likely a negative partitive (as opposed to possessive) genitive, i.e. _not any of XXX_?


----------



## LilianaB

Hello, Francis. So would you agree that in Czech and Slovak the Accusative is used in both affirmative and negative constructions, if no partitive is used? In Polish, I think it is always the Genitive in negation, regardless whether it is regular or partitive use.

The problem with the use of the Genitive versus the Accusative in negative constructions in Russian must be really something much more complex than in other languages. Different people apparently use it differently. There was even a study done how being bilingual English/Russian influences the use of the Genitive and the Accusative in negative constructions in Russian.  http://www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2011/05/30-ModyanovaBUCLD2005.pdf


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> Would you then agree with out bracket-loving friend (see his remarks in #25) that the origin of the phenomenon is most likely a negative partitive (as opposed to possessive) genitive, i.e. _not any of XXX_?


I've not understood the explanation of ({[|]}) as an explicit "negative partitive <> possessive" opposition, but I may have also misundestood him in some details. Instead of analyzing the answers given by our bracket-loving friend , I'd rather try to explain my opinion more clearly:

1. The usage of the genitive, both in affirmative and negative sentences (instead of accusative, eventually nominative), has it's origin in the phenomenon that we used to call "partitive genitive"
2. The existence of this phenomenon itself does not depend on the construction how the possession is expressed
3. Some constructions, negative or "positive", using expressions like _lot of, un poco de, много ..._ leeds to genitive "logically" as they express the aspect of "partitivity" _a priori._ 
4. In case of negation, the usage of this “partitive” genitive seems to be even be more “adequate” or “useful” , thus generally perhaps more frequent than in affirmative sentences. That’s what I’ve called “extra justification" (#12) (and here I can agrre with ({[|]}), i.e. “...it's always more difficult to discuss non-existences than existences of things ...” etcetera.)
5. If this kind of genitive had appeard first in negative sentences or in affirmative ones, I’m not able to say, of course. But according to my personal opinion, the grammaticalization of this kind of genitive is a secondary phenomenon, i.e. primarily it was not connected exclusively to negation. However, the usage in case of negation could be reinforced (see the previous point).

P.S. What's your opinion? ...


----------



## francisgranada

LilianaB said:


> Hello, Francis. So would you agree that in Czech and Slovak the Accusative is used in both affirmative and negative constructions, if no partitive is used? ...


Yes.

(There are some cases where the genitive is/can be used instead of the accusative, though they are not strictly "partitives", but even in these  these cases the usage of genitive does not depend on the negation.)


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> 1. The usage of the genitive, both in affirmative and negative sentences (instead of accusative, eventually nominative), has it's origin in the phenomenon that we used to call "partitive genitive"


That was my question: if you analyse this as a partitive genitive.


francisgranada said:


> 2. The existence of this phenomenon itself does not depend on the construction how the possession is expressed


Well, normally a partitive genitive has nothing to do with possession.


francisgranada said:


> But according to my personal opinion, the grammaticalization of this kind of genitive is a secondary phenomenon, i.e. primarily it was not connected exclusively to negation. However, the usage in case of negation could be reinforced (see the previous point).


Of course not. The partitive genitive exists in other European languages as well (e.g. Latin and German) where it has nothing to do with negation. The partitive genitive as such is not typically Slavic.


----------



## francisgranada

Thanks for your answer. 

I'd like to add to this disussion, that there are quite significant differences in the obbligatory/facultative/possible ... usage of the partitive genitive (both in negative and positive sense) even in the same group of the languages. E.g. in Italian, it is quite "normal" to say _con degli amici_, i.e. literally "with of friends". Such constructions are possible also in French but not in Spanish (as far as I know).


----------



## Roy776

berndf said:


> Of course not. The partitive genitive exists in other European languages as well (e.g. Latin and German) where it has nothing to do with negation. The partitive genitive as such is not typically Slavic.



A partitive genitive in German? Could you please provide one or two examples?


----------



## berndf

Roy776 said:


> A partitive genitive in German? Could you please provide one or two examples?


_Der ältere *der beiden Männer* kam auf mich zu.
Er trank ein Glass *warmer Milch*.
_


----------



## Roy776

Oh, of course. I didn't think about this construction. Thanks for the examples.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> _Der ältere *der beiden Männer* kam auf mich zu. Er trank ein Glass *warmer Milch*._


 I think it's not the same as e.g. in case of "je n'ai pas *de *crayon". We could say, at least in theory, "je n'ai pas *le *crayon". But how could we avoid the genitive in "Der ältere *der *beid*en* Männ*er*"* ?*


----------



## ({[|]})

LilianaB said:


> because I did not say it in relation to the constructions related to possession, such as: _I don't have a book_, but in other constructions where a Genitive is traditionally used.


I'm very sorry, at first I misread this part of your post, and so I didn't answer it before.  Indeed, I talked exactly about those constructions that you mention ("я не использую столов" ["I don't use any tables"] was the example).

Now I understand. Well, what I was trying to do was to find a common meaning in all the uses of the Genitive case, and to find a justification of the partitive uses of the Genitive case, such as its use in negation (the topic of this thread), basing on this common meaning. I called the relation, that is expressed both by the Genitive case and by the verb "to have", "a possession", and this was indeed an unlucky choice, because usually we use the word "possession" to refer to a special kind of this relation, namely when a person possesses a thing, uses it, cares for it, and others have to ask the person's permission if they wish to use this thing. I'm very sorry for misleading you. 

That is, I wanted to describe the use of the Genitive in negation as a special case of the general meaning of the Genitive case; but I unluckily used the word "possession" to refer to this general meaning, whereas in fact "possession" is just another special case of it.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

May I go to the wildest part of my "wild guess"? Well, it is a bit out of the topic, but I think it may be useful for the discussion of the topic. That is "the way of thinking":

First, I paid attention to the fact, that the meanings of the Genitive case (and its English counterpart, "of"; we Russians may also employ the preposition "у") and of the verb "to have" ("иметь", we have this verb too, though we rarely use it) are the same. That is, the construction "A has B" can often be converted into "B of A", and the relation between A and B remains the same, the only change is syntactical. In other cases, such change is a little less automatic, though still possible. Moreover, we may turn this into a "possessive" construct, "A's B", like "my book", or "the mother's book" (Russian "моя книга", "мамина книга"), and the sense again will remain mostly the same, only with some shades (it seems to me, that this construct shows the having in a more "humane-like" way, more like a human might have something, not like a car might have something).

Then, I compared the constructions like "I have a cow" ("a cow of mine", "my cow"), "I have cold", "I have doubts", "I have a problem", "The house has three windows", "the clause has a subject" etc, and tried to find out, what's in common among them. It seems that in all such constructions "A":
1) is directly related to "B"; in other words, "A" and "B" cooperate actively in a lot of ways at the same time (that is, "having" is a "generic relation" of some kind);
2) has a long-term control over "B", "B" is dependent on "A".
That's it! Nothing more. The rest is context-dependent (the way, in which one might have a cow, is different from the way, in which a clause might have a subject).

I don't know how such general meaning of the Genitive case and of the similar constructs evolved. Maybe, the possessive submeaning appeared first, and then came a generalization. (At least, this explains, why the word "my" may express not only strictly possession of a thing — as in "my doubts", for example. We may say, that the meaning of "my" might have been generalized as well) But, once such general meaning exists in the languages, it is possible to guess, that the partitive submeanings of the Genitive case might have appeared as the specialization of it. We (francisgranada and I) tried to find possible ways of such specialization (but using quite different words), and thus to explain and justify the use of them.

To know, in what sequence different partitive submeanings appeared in the languages, one needs to be a language historian, which I am not. Probably, in different languages the sequences of appearance were different; what I was trying to find in #25 was a common logic that explains such uses and makes them theoretically possible and expectable. What exactly was in the practice of different languages, I do not know.


----------



## ancalimon

I couldn't quiet understand the question but if Turkish has it, the answer you are looking for is here. 

http://www.cromwell-intl.com/turkish/nouns.html


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> I think it's not the same as e.g. in case of "je n'ai pas *de *crayon". We could say, at least in theory, "je n'ai pas *le *crayon". But how could we avoid the genitive in "Der ältere *der *beid*en* Männ*er*"* ?*


The two French sentences do not mean the same thing. The first is partitive (_I don't have any of the pencils [which exist in the world]_) in meaning and the other one not (_I don't have this specific pencil [but I may have other ones]_).


----------



## LilianaB

Hello, ({[]}) -- (this really a big progress on my part, because usually I don't even like using quotation marks, and I leave them till the end. I could not find the vertical sign, sorry). I was referring only to Russian constructions expressing possession which use the _have_ verb not the _be_ verb to express possession. Russian is really more of a _be_ language as far as expressing things close to possession is concerned. It is more often said _there is by_ _me_ or _with me_, than I_ have it_. It would not apply to the _be_ constructions. The _be_ constructions employ the Nominative and the the Genitive in negation, always I think.  ( regardless whether partitive use or not -- in negation)


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> The two French sentences do not mean the same thing. The first is partitive (_I don't have any of the pencils [which exist in the world]_) in meaning and the other one not (_I don't have this specific pencil [but I may have other ones]_).


Yes, of course, but I wanted to say something else. Your German examples are partitive _a priori _(we have no other possibily as to use the genitive case here), instead in case of  "je n'ai pas de crayon" we can still use the accusative (though changing slightly the sense of the phrase). 

As far as I know (please, correct me if I am mistaken) the expression "ich habe nicht des Bleistift(e)s" is grammatically incorrect in German (normally "kein" should be used instead of the negation with "nicht", but it is an other question).  

The obligatoriety of the usage of genitive in some cases (e.g. the Polish negation, eventually the constuctions that express the possession in some languages, etc.) is a "higher" degree of grammaticalization, because here the genitive practically loses its "partitiveness" (being the only possibility). I think, it is partially also the case of the Italian (and French), where the partitive genitive is very diffused, so in many cases practically we don't "feel" the difference any more. E.g. the Italian expressions "con *de*gli amici" and "con gli amici" (= with friends) practically mean the same. (Strictly saying, the former expression would mean "con unos amigos" and the latter "con los amigos" in Spanish.)


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> As far as I know (please, correct me if I am mistaken) the expression "ich habe nicht des Bleistift(e)s" is grammatically incorrect in German (normally "kein" should be used instead of the negation with "nicht", but it is an other question).


_Wenn ich mit Menschen- und mit Engelzungen redete, und *hätte der Liebe nicht*, so wäre ich ein tönend Erz oder eine klingende Schelle._ 1st Corinthian 13 as translated by Luther. It sounds antiquated today but is still grammatical.


francisgranada said:


> The obligatoriety of the usage of genitive in some cases (e.g. the Polish negation, eventually the constuctions that express the possession in some languages, etc.) is a "higher" degree of grammaticalization, because here the genitive practically loses its "partitivness" (being the only possibility).


I agree.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> _Wenn ich mit Menschen- und mit Engelzungen redete, und *hätte der Liebe nicht*, so wäre ich ein tönend Erz oder eine klingende Schelle._ 1st Corinthian 13 as translated by Luther. It sounds antiquated today but is still grammatical.


Thanks, it's a beautiful example, and also "understandable/justifiable" from the Indoeuopean point of view (the possibility is given ...)


----------



## francisgranada

ancalimon said:


> I couldn't quiet understand the question but if Turkish has it, the answer you are looking for is here.  http://www.cromwell-intl.com/turkish/nouns.html


The link is really interesting, but it's a bit difficult to learn all the Turkish grammar in a few seconds ... (though I'd like to). As the "logic" of the Hungarian grammar is in many cases quite similar to the Turkish, I try to explain briefly the "situation" in Hungarian (for those who are interested in):

1. The negation: expressions like "I drink water", "I don't drink water" ... are always expressed by the accusative case: _Iszom vize*t*, Nem iszom vize*t*_  (iszom=I drink, víz=water, -*t*=accusative, nem=not). 

2. The possession: expressions like "I have books", "I have no book(s)" ... are always expressed by nominative plus the personal marker: _Van könyve*m*, Nincs könyve*m* _(van=is, nincs=is not, könyv=book, -*m*=first person singular). When emphasized, we can say also: _Neke*m* van könyve*m*, Neke*m* nincs könyve*m*_ (nekem=to me), thus literally we have something like "to-me is book-my" and "to-me is-not book-my".

3. The IE partitive genitive is expressed in a different way, using some suffix or postposition, for example:_ Iszom a víz*ből* _(lit. "I drink *from *the water"), _Két férfi* közül*_ ("der beiden Männer", lit. circa "*from between* two man" [_man _is in singular]), etcetera ... 

So I think that neighter the "partitive genitive" nor some kind of "genitive of negation", as grammatical criteria o terms, do have too much sense in Hungarian. (Even the term "genitive" cannot be applied/used in Hungarian in the same sense/manner as in the IE languages.)

(For curiosity, how does it work in Turkish?)


----------



## ({[|]})

francisgranada said:


> 3. The IE partitive genitive is expressed in a different way, using some suffix or postposition, for example:_ Iszom a víz*ből* _(lit. "I drink *from *the water"), _Két férfi* közül*_ ("der beiden Männer", lit. circa "*from between* two man" [_man _is in singular]), etcetera ...


Interesting... Isn't "*from*" the original sense of the French preposition "de" and of the English preposition "of"? Or it is downright wrong?


francisgranada said:


> (Even the term "genitive" cannot be  applied/used in Hungarian in the same sense/manner as in the IE  languages.)


 What is the Hungarian for "the leg of the chair", francis?

Mr. Onion


----------



## francisgranada

({[|]});12258708 said:
			
		

> ... Isn't "*from*" the original sense of the French preposition "de" ...


Yes, but after the fall of the declension in vulgar Latin, the prepostion _de_ substituted the original Latin genitive. 



> What is the Hungarian for "the leg of the chair"


1. Székláb (lit. "chairleg")
2. A szék lába (lit. circa: "the chair leg-its", meaning "the chair's leg")
3. A széknek a lába (lit. circa: "the chair-to the leg-its", meaning ""the leg of the chair")


----------



## ({[|]})

francisgranada said:


> 1. Székláb (lit. "chairleg")
> 2. A szék lába (lit. circa: "the chair leg-its", meaning "the chair's leg")
> 3. A széknek a lába (lit. circa: "the chair-to the leg-its", meaning ""the leg of the chair")


Thanks! This is quite interesting...  So to say, Hungarian has a case for the possessed one, right? Or this "a" at the end is supposed to modify all the phrase, and not only "láb"? But I see the point: in Hungarian the "possessive" construction and the "partitive" construction are two quite different constructions, that is, with different origin.


----------



## LilianaB

I agree with Berndf and Francisgranada that the Genitive in negation in such languages as Polish and Lithuanian, as an example, has acquired a life of its own and it does not have that much to do, or even anything to do, with the partitive use. What was it in the PIE? How were negations formed, from whatever was reconstructed? I am interested in the Accusative-Genitive opposition only.


----------



## francisgranada

({[|]});12259732 said:
			
		

> Thanks! This is quite interesting...  So to say, Hungarian has a case for the possessor, right? Or this "a" at the end is supposed to modify all the phrase, and not only "láb"? But I see the point: in Hungarian the "possessive" construction and the "partitive" construction are two quite different constructions, that is, with different origin.


This "a" is rather a "personal marker" of the 3rd person (or "personal suffix") than a case and it modifies only "láb", indicating that it belongs to the previous noun in this case ("szék"). E.g. "láb*am"* would indicate that it belongs to the 1st person sg., i.e. it means "my leg". But we are going to be OT ...


----------

