# позволяет



## Konstantinos

Рассекречивание архивных документов, которое сейчас активно идёт в России, работа поисковых экспедиций позволяет раскрыть и вновь осмыслить ранее неизвестные, но страшные события прошедшей войны, новые факты массовых убийств советских граждан – стариков, женщин, детей – нацистами и их пособниками.

Hi all. This is from a speech by Vladimir Putin (20 ноября 2020 года).

Why is it позволяет? I would expect позволяют. What is the subject of позволяет? Рассекречивание архивных документов or работа поисковых экспедиций?

Заранее спасибо.


----------



## Vadim K

The subject consists of both "Рассекречивание архивных документов, которое сейчас активно идёт в России" *AND* "работа поисковых экспедиций". But you can replace these phrases either with "*это, всё это*" or with "_*они, эти действия*_".

If the subject is "_*это, всё это*_" then the whole phrase will be _*"*_Рассекречивание архивных документов, которое сейчас активно идёт в России, работа поисковых экспедиций (всё это) позволя*е*т раскрыть..."

If the subject is "_*они, эти действия*_" then the whole phrase will be _*"*_Рассекречивание архивных документов, которое сейчас активно идёт в России, работа поисковых экспедиций (эти действия) позволя*ю*т раскрыть..."


----------



## Maroseika

Konstantinos said:


> Why is it позволяет? I would expect позволяют. What is the subject of позволяет? Рассекречивание архивных документов or работа поисковых экспедиций?
> 
> Заранее спасибо.


Yes, you are right, it should be позволяют. I cannot agree that Singular can be justified by anything omitted. Just bad Russian (as well as the word вновь, because one cannot comprehend once more new facts or what has not been revealed until now).


----------



## Vadim K

Maroseika said:


> Yes, you are right, it should be позволяют. I cannot agree that Singular can be justified by anything omitted.


Ok. But then can I ask why you are sure that the complex subject of this sentence should be substituted with "_они_" and not with "_это_"?

I think that the mistake isn't in the verb itself, but that a simplified subject has not been added after the complex one in a situation where the complex subject can be treated ambiguously.


----------



## Maroseika

Vadim K said:


> Ok. But then can I ask why you are sure that the complex subject of this sentence should be substituted with "_они_" and not with "_это_"?
> 
> I think that the mistake isn't in the verb itself, but that a simplified subject has not been added after the complex one in a situation where the complex subject can be treated ambiguously.


Why should they be substituted with anything? Just two subjects (one of which is complicated with the subordinate sentence).


----------



## Vadim K

Maroseika said:


> Why should they be substituted with anything? Just two subjects (one of which is complicated with the subordinate sentence).



Yes. Вut when a predicate agrees with several subjects, the predicate is not always in the plural.


----------



## Maroseika

Yes, but is it that case?


----------



## Vadim K

Maroseika said:


> Yes, but is it that case?


3. Форма единственного числа сказуемою предпочитается при смысловой близости однородных подлежащих, например:

... С зимой холодной нужда, голод настает (Крылов); Неточность и запутанность выражений свидетельствует только о запутанности мыслей (Чернышевский); Эта простота и ясность мышления заключает в себе задатки новой жизни… (Добролюбов); Никто и ничто не нарушало тишины.

Ср. также: выписка и выдача документов производится (общая операция) — прием и выдача книг производятся (разные операции). На согласование сказуемого может оказать влияние наличие среди подлежащих формы множественного числа: В постель ее уложили ревность и слезы (Чехов). Но и в этом случае возможна форма единственного числа сказуемого: Несся тяжелый топот кованых сапог и крикливые бабьи взвизги (Серафимович).

Don't you think that "_Рассекречивание архивных документов, которое сейчас активно идёт в России_" and "_работа поисковых экспедиций_" can be treated as closely related subjects?


----------



## Rosett

In speech, a Russian verb tends to agree with the closest member in the sentence, if there’s no conjunction.


----------



## Maroseika

Vadim K said:


> Don't you think that "_Рассекречивание архивных документов, которое сейчас активно идёт в России_" and "_работа поисковых экспедиций_" can be treated as closely related subjects?


No, I don't think so and that's exactly what I meant by my question. Нужда и голод, выписка и выдача, топот и взвизги are very closely related things, i.e. relating to one process or event, while opening the archives and the work of the search expeditions are quite different actions having only one common thing in the context - they both "allow...".


----------



## Rosett

Maroseika said:


> Нужда и голод, выписка и выдача, топот и взвизги are very closely related things, i.e. relating to one process or event,


In your examples, the subjects are connected with conjunction _и,_ while in the OP the subjects are separated by comma.


----------



## Maroseika

Rosett said:


> In your examples, the subjects are connected with conjunction _и,_ while in the OP the subjects are separated by comma.


It's not a criterion, since и can be changed to comma and vice versa without the predjudice to the sense. In one of the original examples it's exactly comma.


----------



## nizzebro

Maroseika said:


> Нужда и голод, выписка и выдача, топот и взвизги are very closely related things, i.e. relating to one process or event,


Besides that, most of them appear there actually as qualities of the same object (выписка и выдача (чего?) документов etc). But нужда и голод are independent subjects, and, that particular phrase sounds not so definite to me (despite of that written by a classic). I guess that in the original sentence, we have the same dilemma: the singular is not so good because the two subjects are not temporally unified and neither are qualities of the same entity; and with the plural form, the issue is that these two feel "too independent", like some kind of animate actors - while being deverbals.


----------



## Rosett

Maroseika said:


> It's not a criterion, since и can be changed to comma and vice versa without the predjudice to the sense.


Even if separating the subjects by comma, or connecting them by conjunction и wouldn’t have impact on the sense, the grammatical aspect in these cases may be not the same.
In your examples,
нужда и голод
выписка и выдача
топот и взвизги
assume a predicate in plural, while separating _выписка, выдача_ by comma may be entailed by a predicate in singular.


----------



## Maroseika

These pairs are not my examples, but refer to the examples given above. Taken in the given contexts, they require Singular or Plural predicates as provided in the same post above irrespectively the comma/conjunction between them


----------



## pimlicodude

Here, the most difficult thing for me is finding a natural translation of "поисковых экспедиций", as an "expedition" would be most likely to the Antarctic, not to government archives. But the way I see it, there is only one singular subject. We don't read Рассекречивание архивных документов ***и*** работа поисковых экспедиций. Рассекречивание архивных документов is the subject, but it is then restated as работа поисковых экспедиций:

The declassification of documents in the archives, which is currently underway in Russia, (i.e.) the work of (such) search/research projects, is allowing (us) to uncover and conceptualise anew previously unknown terrible events of the foregoing (=last?) war, (i.e.) new facts regarding mass killings of Soviet citizens - of old men, women and children - by the Nazis and their henchmen.

Alternatively, maybe twin subjects of a verb may be given, separated by a comma, but with no conjunction? (I think this is what previous participants in this thread alluded to, but while agreeing with them, I'm suggesting an alternative explanation that the noun работа is just a restatement of the subject. I'm happy to be told my solution is wrong, by the way.)


----------



## nizzebro

pimlicodude said:


> Here, the most difficult thing for me is finding a natural translation of "поисковых экспедиций", as an "expedition" would be most likely to the Antarctic, not to government archives


Поисковая экспедиция in my understanding is not that to government archives but namely expedition as a (re)search cruise, due to the adjective used for a search around the region/country: поисковая группа - search party (and экспедиция is as well used for an expedition party), поисковая операция - search operation etc. So in the original context it should mean searching for graves, questioning witnesses/relatives of them and like; archives might also be included, but along with экспедиция it is anyway something remote.


----------



## pimlicodude

nizzebro said:


> Поисковая экспедиция in my understanding is not that to government archives but namely expedition as a (re)search cruise, due to the adjective used for a search around the region/country: поисковая группа - search party (and экспедиция is as well used for an expedition party), поисковая операция - search operation etc. So in the original context it should mean searching for graves, questioning witnesses/relatives of them and like; archives might also be included, but along with экспедиция it is anyway something remote.


OK, thanks. So it is something quite different from the declassification of the archives per se. I see.


----------



## Rosett

_Рассекречивание, которое …,  работа поисковых экспедиций позволяет …
Рассекречивание, которое… , и работа поисковых экспедиций позволяет …_


> So it is something quite different from the declassification of the archives per se.


Отнюдь.
_Поисковые экспедиции _are the organized field units of experienced professionals and freelance diggers who are searching for and excavating the artifacts in the battlefields, providing their results such as bones of the dead (especially, those found in the mass graves,) uniforms and clothing, arms, weapons, ammunition, documents and papers, personal belongings, awards (orders, medals etc,) to investigators, prosecutors and historians as a relevant material evidence of military actions to incriminate those responsible, pursuing the same goal as that of declassification of the archives, given the context of foregoing wars.


----------

