# All Slavic languages: Collective plural



## beclija

Hello all,

There is a group of words that really fascinates me in Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian, and I am interested if something close exists in other Slavic languages. It is nouns that look more or less like ordinry neuter nouns in the singular (they do take an extra syllable in the oblique cases, but so do many more that are otherwhise well-behaved), but they go totally wild in the plural: The plural behaves like a consonant-final feminine singular noun in it's declension and adjective agreement (which is why they are often called collectives), but unlike "true" collectives the verb is *plural*. These refer to young animals and humans like "tele" (calf), plural "telad", "siroče"/"siročad" (orphan), "jagnje"/"jagnjad" (lamb), and many more. (Dijete/dete = child also belongs in this group as far as my question is concerned, even though the plural is a different declension: djec*a*/dec*a.*)

To illustrate their weird behaviour:
The farmer looks at his young calves. His calves need food: Seljak gleda svoj*u* mlad*u* telad_. Njegov*oj* telad*i* treba hrana

(Note: _exactly _the same endings as with feminine singular: The father looks at his young daughter. His daughter needs help: Otac gleda svoju mladu kćer. Njegov*oj* kćer*i* treba pomoć.) This is the only possibility here.

And now we turn to sentences where "telad" is subject, and all of a sudden it behaves like plural. Some andom examples from the first few hits you get in google for "telad su":

_Na početku eksperimenta telad *su *(=_plural auxiliary_) u proseku bila stara mesec dana._ (At the beginning of the experiment, the calves were on average one month old.")

_Telad *su* tradicionalno jeftinija u kontinentalnom dijelu Hrvatske._ (Calves are traditionally cheaper in the inland parts of Croatia.)

_U prvim danima života telad *su* osjetljiva_. (In the first days of their lives, calves are sensitive/vulnerable.)

So, the question: Does your language have something like this?

(Bonus question for speakers of Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian and any other language that turns out to have the same phenomenon: I know that often it is an alternative to use singular verbs, when you stress more the collectivity of the group of calves than the plurality of several calves. Are their any clear rules when to use singular and when plural, or contexts where one of them is totally wrong?)

Thanks for all answers!


----------



## cajzl

In Czech:

tele (gen. telete), jehně (jehněte), kuře (kuřete) - *neuter singular*
telata, jehňata, kuřata - *neuter plural*

It is merely a coincidence that some morphological forms in neuter plural look like feminine singular in some cases (not in all). It is true for many IE languages, e.g. for Latin: istud verbum (n.sg.) - _this word_, ista verba (n.pl.) - _these words_ looks like ista femina (f.sg.) - this woman. The verb in predicate is usually in plural (e.g. verba mov*ent*, exempla trah*unt*), but sometimes in singular (I think in Old Greek).

In Czech the declension of the neuter nouns in plural is not entirely identical to the feminine singular:

malé tele (n.sg.)
malá telata (n.pl) looks like malá dívka (f.sg.) only in the nominative case

_U prvim danima života telad *su* osjetljiva_. V prvních dnech života *jsou* telata zranitelná.


----------



## venenum

beclija said:


> _Na početku eksperimenta telad *su JE!, singular auxiliary *(=_plural auxiliary_) u proseku bila stara mesec dana._ (At the beginning of the experiment, the calves were on average one month old.")
> 
> _Telad *su * JE! tradicionalno jeftinija u kontinentalnom dijelu Hrvatske._ (Calves are traditionally cheaper in the inland parts of Croatia.)
> 
> _U prvim danima života telad *su JE!* osjetljiva_. (In the first days of their lives, calves are sensitive/vulnerable.)


 
Actually, I must correct you: _telad_ has the function of the plural of the noun _tele _(I can't explain how the real plural got extinct, but it simply died out, and I don't believe anyone remembers it today), but it's actually a collective noun. There are several nouns that have a collective noun instead of their regular plural.
Collective nouns are nouns that are in singular, but signifiy plural (usually a group of things). Most of the nouns which can make a collective noun have a regular plural besides it:
Sg.               Pl          Coll.
list            listovi        lišće
cvijet        cvjetovi      cvijeće
djevojka     djevojke     djevojčad
pas           psi            paščad
drvo         drva           drveće​A characteristic of these nouns is, that they are uncountable nouns. So, you can't say _dva lišća, pet drveća. _However, where a collective noun has taken over the role of the regular plural, due to its inexistence, this is possible (so, you can say _deset teladi)._

I hope I didn't make you even more confused.

Poison

Ustvari, moram te ispraviti: _telad_ ima funkciju množine imenice _tele_, (ne mogu objasniti kako je prava množina izumrla, ali jednostavno je nestala i vjerojatno je se više nitko ne sjeća danas), ali ustvari je zbirna imenica. Postoji više imenica koje koriste zbirnu imenicu umjesto množine. 
Zbirne imenice su imenice koje stoje u jednini, ali označavaju množinu (obično grupu nečega). Većina imenica koje tvore zbirne imenice imaju i pravilnu množinu uz nju. 

Karakteristično za ove imenice je da su nebrojive. Prema tome, ne možeš reći _dva lišća, pet drveća. _Ipak, tamo gdje je zbirna imenica preuzela ulogu množine neke imenice, zbog nepostojanja pravilne množine, moguće je brojati ju (dakle, možeš reći _deset teladi)_

Nadam se da te ovim nisam dodatno zbunila.

Poison


----------



## cyanista

> Collective nouns are nouns that are in singular, but signifiy plural (usually a group of things). Most of the nouns which can make a collective noun have a regular plural besides it:Sg.               Pl          Coll.
> list            listovi        lišće
> cvijet        cvjetovi      cvijeće
> <...>​A characteristic of these nouns is, that they are uncountable nouns. So, you can't say _dva lišća, pet drveća. _However, where a collective noun has taken over the role of the regular plural, due to its inexistence, this is possible (so, you can say _deset teladi)._


Interesting! 

Belarusian also has similar collective nouns that offer an alternative to regular plural:

лiст - лiсты, *лiсьце *(leaf - leaves)
вугаль - вуглi, *вугольле* (coal - coals)

Those are nominally neuter singular and uncountable.
So I fnd this amazing that collective nouns can be countable! Is the verb after _deset teladi _singular or plural? 

Цiкава!

У беларускай мове таксама iснуюць зьбiральныя назоўнiкi, якiя могуць замяняць звычайны множны лiк. 

лiст - лiсты, *лiсьце *
вугаль - вуглi, *вугольле* 

 Яны невылічальныя i адносяцца да адзiночнага лiку нiякага роду. 
Неверагодна, што сустракаюцца i вылічальныя зьбiральныя назоўнiкi! У якiм лiку стаiць дзеяслоў пасьля deset teladi: у множным цi адзiночным?


----------



## cajzl

The same in Czech:

list (sg.), listy (pl.), listí (coll. sg.)
uhel (sg.), uhly (pl.), uhlí (coll. sg.)

The collective nouns can be countable but with different numerals:

jeden uhel - pět uhlů - patero uhlí (= patero druhů uhlí)


----------



## beclija

Thanks for all answers! 

@cajzl: that is precisely the point why I chose accusative and dative case, where one can see the difference between feminine singular and neuter plural. 
In Croatian you also tend to use thise nouns to count the "collective" numerals: "dvoje/.../petero/... teladi" (but I'm not sure if this is obligatory or if it is also possible to use the normal numerals).

@poison: I didn't express myself very clearly... In this particular case, I'd rather ignore grammarians. I'm only interested in what people actually say and find natural. Here my experience says that both singular and plural verbs are fine (google has 95:99 for "telad su:telad je", too). Or maybe "telad su" is "Eastern"? Anyway, this guy and these people also seem to believe in plural agreement. Another reason to treat them separately from the "lišće" (foliage, from "list" - leave) type collectives is the distinctive morphology and the fact that they are countable. (If you don't accept "telad su", we still have to explain "djeca").


----------



## beclija

Yet another one who thinks plural predicates are possible:

Dragutin Raguž: Praktična hrvatska gramatika. Zagreb: Medicinska naklada. 1997, §642:


			
				D.Raguž said:
			
		

> (...)Predikat je s takvim riječima u jednini ili u množini:
> _ Telad pije vodu/piju vodu.
> Telad je debela./Telad su debela.
> Momčad je vesela./Momčad su vesela.
> Čeljad je gladna./Čeljad su gladna_.


----------



## tsixvi

venenum said:


> Actually, I must correct you: _telad_ has the function of the plural of the noun _tele _(I can't explain how the real plural got extinct, but it simply died out, and I don't believe anyone remembers it today), but it's actually a collective noun. There are several nouns that have a collective noun instead of their regular plural.


 
This is really interesting and maybe comparison with other Slavic languages can indeed offer some insights (? at least I hope so...).

In Russian, the words referring to young animals (also) form a particular category. They also behave irregularly; a bit different than in Bosnian/Serbian/Croate, though historically these phenomena are definitely linked. In Russian, these words are masculin in their singular form, and neutral in plural:

телёнок - телята (Gen. телят) (tel'onok - tel'ata/tel'at)
ягнёнок - ягнята (Gen. ягнят) (jagn'onok - jagn'ata/jagn'at)
This goes for all small animals, like: утёнок - утята (ut'onok - ut'ata, little ducks), медвежёнок - медвежата (medvezhonok - medvezhata, little bears), etc.

Their plural behaves (today) as a perfectly regular neutral, "animated" plural (taking a plural verb, for that matter). The singular form ends in the - "masculinising" - suffix -нок, which has been added relatively recently in the history of the language. 
The ancient word for child, дитя (dit'a), which has in its singular everyday use been replaced by ребёнок (reb'onok) a couple of centuries ago, has - probably for this reason - not taken the suffix. Although this is a bit of a special case with a different plural as well (дети, Gen. детей for the everyday plural equivalent to ребёнок (reb'onok) in singular, though дитята, Gen. дитят (dit'ata/dit'at) also exists as corresponding to дитя (dit'a)), so I'd rather not venture too deep into this now.

I find Poison's comment particularly interesting as it offers an explanation of why these words behave differently. It reminds me of the old (Eastern) Slavic word челядь (chel'ad'), "people" - a collective (and feminine!) noun based on the (now forgotten) word that also forms the basis of человек (chelovek), "person". 

Those are/were collectives that then replaced the normal plural - in the first place because people would just use the collective noun to talk about their (troup of) calves, lambs, (all their) children etc. The - historically - collective form explains why if sticking strictly to grammatical rules, you should probably use a single verb. The fact that for these words, no other plural exists any more and people "feel" the former collective form as a plural in its turn explains why they tend to use a plural verb - to a degree where this becomes actually grammatically accepted.

This all is only with regard to irregular plurals of words referring to young animals/humans - there would be a lot more to say about "normal", uncountable collective nouns, but maybe later, or someone else... (this is my first posting and I'm getting a bit nervous that I'm talking too much )


----------



## Maja

U mojoj gramatici piše:
*Zbirne* (kolektivne) *imenice* su  one imenice koje označavaju više bića ili predmeta iste vrste uzetih skupa, u  neodređenom zbiru ili u prirodnoj celini: _lišće, drvlje, kamenje, cveće, telad, momčad, deca,  gospoda_.  
Njihova najvažnija osobina je u tome da *oblikom jednine*  (to lišće - tog lišća - tom lišću..., ta deca - te dece - toj deci...)  označavaju *množinu*. 

My grammar says (translation might be a little hmm...):
 *Collective nouns* designate several beings and objects of  the same kind taken jointly, in indefinite sum or its natural  totality: _lišće (leafs), drvlje (trees), kamenje (rocks), cveće  (flowers), telad (calves), momčad (lads),__ deca (children), gospoda (gentlemen)._
 Their main feature is that *their singular* form (to lišće  - tog lišća - tom lišću..., ta deca - te dece - toj deci...) expresses  *the plural*.


----------



## beclija

That is right, but in my opinion we have to make a distinction between three types of collective nouns in Serbian/Croatian:

1) -je (and some other suffixes): _list - lišće, drvo - drvlje_ etc. They are grammatically clearly singular, verbs are exclusively in singular agreement when the "collective noun" is subject.

2) "young animals and humans" (+few other words), _tele - telad, unuče - unučad_ etc.: Singular declension on the noun itself and the adjectives (consonant-final feminine), optionally singular or plural verb. Replace normal plural of the base word. 

3) djeca (children), braća (brothers), gospoda (gentlemen): Singular declension on the noun itself and the adjectives (a-final feminine), exclusively plural verbs when subject of a phrase. Replace normal plural of the base word.

I'm really interested in (2) and (3) only, there is nothing special about (1) really - other languages have similar categories (you can compare _Busch - Gebüsch_ in German or unrelated words like _leaf - foliage_ in English). As for as I know, *every *neuter noun in the language that denotes an animate being (animal or human) falls into (2) (or (3) in the case of djeca). Or is there any counterexample, i.e. a living being which forms a normal neuter plural?


----------

