# The Form of Adjectives After Numbers



## LilianaB

I have been really confused by the use of different adjectives after numbers in Russian, with nouns of the masculine, neuter and especially the feminine gender. I think it is a new trend in Russian to use a strange form of the adjectives after numbers in Russian. Could someone explain to me what the proper form should be in the feminine gender, especially. You could use the Russian translation of the following phrases, if you could.
Two small dogs
two beautiful women
two new books
two strong men
two important questions
two black pencils.

Thank you kindly. I have been really confused by the use of the feminine forms of adjectives after numbers.
This is something I have been noticing over the past few months. They used to sound natural, but not any more. Is there a new trend as far as the usage of adjectives with numbers is concerned?


----------



## Maroseika

What exactly is confusing for you, using Nominative or Genitive?
Nominative is used in most cases, but if the stress in Pl. Nom. and Sing. Gen. is different, Gen. is used: три верных жены, but две грустные индианки.
Also, after some prepositions before the whole contsruction it will be Gen.: по четыре пожилых официантки, по две мокрых курицы.
Of course, all this refers to 2, 3 and 4 only.
Other details here (par. 193).


----------



## LilianaB

I think some people use the Genitive form where the Accusative should have been used, which sounds strange with the feminine gender, especially. I see two small dogs, for example, I have to add two spoonfuls (two full tablespoons) of sugar.


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> I think some people use the Genitive form where the Accusative should have been used, which sounds strange with the feminine gender, especially. I see two small dogs, for example, I have to add two spoonfuls (two full tablespoons) of sugar.



Я вижу две маленькие собаки? This is impossible because the dogs are animated. It should be двух маленьких собак, but it is connected with the case of два (it is двух).
Две столовые/столовых ложки - I think both variants are possible, but Nom./Acc. sounds more natural.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, thank you. This is exactly what I mean. Some people, and as I have noticed it is becoming more and more popular, use the Genitive with inanimate nouns. What do you think about the trend? Is it a trend at all? Only the 
Adjective is in the Genitive form then, I think. This is what some do.


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> Yes, thank you. This is exactly what I mean. Some people, and as I have noticed it is becoming more and more popular, use the Genitive with inanimate nouns.


Я вижу трех машин?
Он покорил четырех горных вершин?
I have never heard anything like that except as a joke or professional slang (as забить шара in billiards). What exactly heard you?


----------



## LilianaB

It shows best in the feminine gender. Even if you look in Google for the translation of two small dogs you find the wrong form. I think some people may imitate it. I see two young women, the translation of it might use the form I find strange.


----------



## Explorer41

Hello, LilianaB and Maroseika and Everyone!

I'll try to shed light on the topic as I get it, but I'm totally not sure if I got it right, so if somebody knows the right history, I ask him/her not to keep it in secret, because it should answer the title question. I had to follow the way of thought, not the way of history.

I have a strange suspicion that a low numeral (lower than five but greater than one) requires the Singular Genitive of a noun attached to it. For example:
"две бабушки" - "голос бабушки"
"три корабля" - "цвет корабля"
"четыре рати" - "могущество рати"

The logic seems to be a bit obscure: you name a quantity, and you attach a noun to the quantity to characterize it - that is, to tell what kind of things do you count. The describing noun goes in the Sing. Gen. - you don't need multiple concepts to characterize a single quantity!

The further - the stranger. The logic is truly obscure and we don't feel it at all. So when we describe our noun with an adjective, we put the adjective in the Plural! That is, we think that if there are many things expressed by a noun, then why not to describe them with a Plural adjective. But so far, only with a Plural Genitive adjective: "две моих бабушки", "три больших корабля", "четыре волчьих рати". 

Another bit of confusion: how are we to decline our numerical constructions? According to the logic reconstructed by me, we would only decline somehow the numerals, and keep nouns unchanged ("Клянусь тремя корабля!"  - a totally wrong phrase in our language). But as this logic is obscure, and the natural logic is to decline nouns, we just do the right thing - decline nouns, and put nouns in the Plural form. We then consider the numerals and the adjectives to agree with nouns: "клянусь большими кораблями" - "клянусь тремя большими кораблями". But when the numerical construction is to be in the Accusative, and the noun is inanimate, then we still put adjectives in the Plural Genitive instead of Plural Accusative, and place nouns in the Singular Genitive, again instead of the Plural Accusative: "я вижу большие корабли" - "я вижу три больших корабля". Maybe it's just because it's hard to say "я вижу три корабли" (totally wrong) when the Nominative form of the expression is "три корабля", and the Nominative and Accusative forms are to be the same, as they are always the same if a noun is inanimate. The Nominative form holds its strange behaviour, so does the Accusative form.

The train of time is going on, and we get another happy idea. Why should we have this annoying exception? The reason is especially unclear with nouns of the first and third declensions (it's time to note that all feminine nouns belong to these declensions). You see, the Singular Genitive and the Plural Accusative (as well as the Plural Nominative) of inanimate nouns of these declensions coincide. So there is now no cause to nourish strange suspicions like the one I said of in the beginning. And we just bring the adjectives to accord with the common logic, which resides in our minds: "насыпать две столовые ложки", "он разбил две большие рати". This happens only sometimes, mostly in the spoken speech. But we still always break this new logic when we use nouns of the second declension: "я вынул три крупных кола".

By the way, Google's translation of the phrase about young women is perfectly correct - "я вижу двух молодых женщин". The translation of the phrase about small dogs is totally wrong ("я вижу два маленьких собак" - it's impossible). I think it's some bug in Google's knowledge base (I believe however the idea to represent human languages with fixed formal grammars and then to base translation of texts on these representations is buggy by itself).

I didn't make any historical research though nor did I read of such a research made by others. So I may be totally wrong. "The text above is provided in the hope it will be useful, but without any explicit or implicit warranty" ;-)


----------



## ahvalj

Explorer41 said:


> Hello, LilianaB and Maroseika and Everyone!
> 
> I have a strange suspicion that a low numeral (lower than five but greater than one) requires the Singular Genitive of a noun attached to it. For example:
> "две бабушки" - "голос бабушки"
> "три корабля" - "цвет корабля"
> "четыре рати" - "могущество рати"
> 
> The logic seems to be a bit obscure: you name a quantity, and you attach a noun to the quantity to characterize it - that is, to tell what kind of things do you count. The describing noun goes in the Sing. Gen. - you don't need multiple concepts to characterize a single quantity!



The reason is entirely casual. In the Old Russian there was a third number — the Dual. For the masculine nouns of the second declension and all nouns of the third declension the ending of the Nominative-Accusative Dual eventually became identical to the Genitive Singular (casually, the stress sometimes remaining different): «дъва стола», «дъвҍ мыши» (earlier the Gen. Sg. was -oed, then -o:d, the Nom.-Acc. Du. -oH, then -o:; resp. Gen. Sg. -eis, Nom.-Acc. Du. -iH, then -i: . When the Dual disappeared, people forgot what these forms meant and reanalyzed them as the Genitive singular. The forms of other declension types were replaced with their Genitive Singulars as well (so «дъвҍ сторонҍ» became «двҍ стороны» etc.). Since they were now used only after numerals, they became special count forms of the noun. Then this former Dual form started to be used not only after "two" but also after "three" and "four" and every other numeral ending on "two", "three" and "four" (22, 23, 24, 1782913102, etc.). A similar process occurred in some other slavic languages.


----------



## ahvalj

Why the Genitive is used in «две моих бабушки», I don't know, I can only hypothesize — however, «пять бабушек» as well as «пять моих бабушек» is easy. 

In the Indo-European, the declension was only in the process of appearing, and the numerals 5, 6, 7, 9 were the last to acquire it. Practically, they didn't decline until the split of the proto-language, and the descendants had to introduce the declension their own ways. The Slavic did this by replacing the old numerals with nouns. So, we have «третий» — «треть» and «четвёртый» — «четверть» preserved as nouns, but their counterparts became plain numerals: «пятый» — «пять», «шестой» — «шесть», «седьмой» — «семь» (earlier «седмь»), «восьмой» — «восемь», «девятый» — «девять» and finally «десятый» — «десять» (the form for 10 moved to this group about 1000 years ago, much later than the others). Since all these forms were nouns and had a meaning of something like «пятёрка, шестёрка, семёрка», they naturally required a Genitive after them, so «пять человек» originally meant «пятёрка человек» etc. With time, they became closer to the numerals, so in Dative, Instrumental and Prepositional the older Genitive was replaced with the respective case forms («пятью собак» became «пятью собаками»), especially since «пяти собак» might mean both Gen., Dat. and Prep. In the Nom. this change so far has not occurred («пять собак»).

I suspect, the appearance of the Genitive in «две *красивых* женщины» is the interference with the other forms: «пять красивых женщин» is regular, and since «две женщины» for the modern speakers is also a sort of Genitive, we are in the process of leveling the agreement of all the non-singular forms: the noun and its accompanying adjective are in Nom. Sg. after "1", in Gen. Sg. after "2-4" (but the adjective in Pl.), and in Gen. Pl. after "5-0".


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> What exactly is confusing for you, using Nominative or Genitive?
> Nominative is used in most cases, but if the stress in Pl. Nom. and Sing. Gen. is different, Gen. is used: три верных жены, but две грустные индианки.
> Also, after some prepositions before the whole contsruction it will be Gen.: по четыре пожилых официантки, по две мокрых курицы.
> Of course, all this refers to 2, 3 and 4 only.
> Other details here (par. 193).


Rosenthal fantasizes. «Три верных жены/три верные жены» as well as «две грустных индианки/две грустные индианки» in Nom. are equally possible, there is absolutely no distribution, neither any tendence for such.


----------



## LilianaB

If someone kindly translates those sentences with their version of translation, it will become evident what I meant. Thank you for all the explanations, they have been very interesting, but I am still confused. I see two small  dogs. I have two important problems to solve. Two small happy dogs are walking by the street. Thank you. This will help a lot, because this is where I have been really confused, only recently.  Thank you, I see when I read it more carefully, that the Nominative form is also allowed. This is what I have been using but recently I noticed that the Genitive was preferred with Adjectives and Numbers. It sounds to me a little strange in some cases, but this is personal taste.


----------



## Maroseika

ы́





ahvalj said:


> Rosenthal fantasizes. «Три верных жены/три верные жены» as well as «две грустных индианки/две грустные индианки» in Nom. are equally possible, there is absolutely no distribution, neither any tendence for such.



Let's just check his exmaples:
две высоких горы
две крупных слезы
Три серых струны натянулись в воздухе.
Две сильных мужских руки подхватили её. 

You are stating that the following is possible in Russian or at least sounds better than in Gen.:
Две сильные мужские руки подхватили ее.
Три серые струны натянулись в воздухе.
Две крупные слезы скатились по ее впалым щекам.
На горизонте маячили две высокие горы, поросшие лесом. 

I wonder how many natives would agree with you. Me - not.

Why our language avoids Nominative in such cases? My wild guess is that when the stress shifts, we are getting "weird" word combinations: серые струны́, высокие горы́. They sound strange because an adjective is in Nom. or Acc. and a noun is in Gen. 
When the stress doesn't shift, it's all right: две серые индианки, машины, три серых индианки, машины).


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> If someone kindly translates those sentences with their version of translation, it will become evident what I meant. Thank you for all the explanations, they have been very interesting, but I am still confused. I see two small  dogs. I have two important problems to solve. Two small happy dogs are walking by the street. Thank you. This will help a lot, because this is where I have been really confused, only recently.  Thank you, I see when I read it more carefully, that the Nominative form is also allowed. This is what I have been using but recently I noticed that the Genitive was preferred with Adjectives and Numbers. It sounds to me a little strange in some cases, but this is personal taste.



I see two small  dogs. - Я вижу двух маленьких собак (animated). 
I have two important problems to solve. - Мне надо решить две важные проблемы (inanimated). 
Two small happy dogs are walking by the street. - По улицы шли две счастливые собачонки / две счастливых собачонки. Nominative seems to me as semantically stressing собачонки, while Genitive - две.


----------



## LilianaB

The problem is some constructions sound better in the Genitive, whereas others in the Nominative. Would there be such a possibility that this is allowed, whatever sounds better in a particular construction, depending on the sound of it.


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> You are stating that the following is possible in Russian or at least sounds better than in Gen.:
> Две сильные мужские руки подхватили ее.
> Три серые струны натянулись в воздухе.
> Две крупные слезы скатились по ее впалым щекам.
> На горизонте маячили две высокие горы, поросшие лесом.
> 
> I wonder how many natives would agree with you. Me - not.
> 
> Why our language avoids Nominative in such cases? My wild guess is that when the stress shifts, we are getting "weird" word combinations: серые струны́, высокие горы́. They sound strange because an adjective is in Nom. or Acc. and a noun is in Gen.
> When the stress doesn't shift, it's all right: две серые индианки, машины, три серых индианки, машины).



http://www.google.ru/search?client=safari&rls=en&q="две+сильные+руки"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=c8TMTtDsJcnpOdS-6IUP

http://www.google.ru/search?client=safari&rls=en&q="Две+крупные+слезы"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=0MXMTqr9McmAOvmkoYsP

http://www.google.ru/search?client=safari&rls=en&q="две+высокие+горы"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=-8TMTvfELIeUOo7CvaIP

«Не читайте до обеда Розенталя» ©

In all these examples both the Nominative and Genitive are possible. I see absolutely no difference in each pair except that the Nominative ending is more euphonic.

P. S. Sorry for the temporary mess: this forum engine doesn't like web-links.


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> In all these examples both the Nominative and Genitive are possible. I see absolutely no difference in each pair except that the Nominative ending is more euphonic.


But I see.


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> But I see.


As I had written (post #10) it appears that the former Nominative is being replaced with the Genitive, and we simply are in the middle of the process. As it often happens, the language (and especially the grammarians) may occasionally try to draw a difference between the concurring forms, but in the future the Nominative in these constructions seem to disappear, as well as these artificial subtleties. (In Latin, I would use the Future Infinitive, but unfortunately the English doesn't have one).


----------



## LilianaB

This is really a pity, because the Nominative sounds in many cases better, and sound for me is the most important thing in any language.


----------



## ahvalj

LilianaB said:


> This is really a pity, because the Nominative sounds in many cases better, and sound for me is the most important thing in any language.



Well, in some Slavic dialects the sound «х» tends to disappear — hopefully, it will do so here, or, better, a vowel will develop after it («две сильныхо руки») ;-) Let's start the fashion.


----------



## LilianaB

I like the Nominative more, so this is really a pity for me. I meant sound as in music, not any particular sound. The new version is interesting, but sounds more Southern Slavic or Old Slavonic, maybe in a new outfit.


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> As I had written (post #10) ...


You know better. But we are talking now about up-to-day language. Whatever a reason, the most important right now is how people are speaking.


----------



## alevtinka

I have a question:

I see two small dogs - Я вижу двух маленьких собак

But why:

I see thirty two small dogs - Я вижу тридцать две маленькие(х) собаки ?

My book writes 2 = 22 (in the sense of case change)


----------



## ahvalj

alevtinka said:


> I have a question:
> 
> I see two small dogs - Я вижу двух маленьких собак
> 
> But why:
> 
> I see thirty two small dogs - Я вижу тридцать две маленькие(х) собаки ?
> 
> My book says as for case change, 2 = 22 ...



The animate form is also fully possible. The inanimate form here is probably a relict from the times when this distinction didn't exist for the feminine nouns («я вижу тридцать две женщины» is also possible).


----------



## alevtinka

Does [Я вижу тридцать двух маленьких собак] also make sense ?


----------



## ahvalj

alevtinka said:


> Does [Я вижу тридцать двух маленьких собак] also make sense ?


Perfectly. Except for that nobody will count them so precisely.


----------



## DiPetrio

ahvalj said:


> Perfectly. Except for that nobody will count them so precisely.



Да никто так не говорит. "Я вижу тридцать две маленьк*ие* собак*и*".


----------



## Natalisha

alevtinka said:


> Does [Я вижу тридцать двух маленьких собак] also make sense ?


It makes sense, but it sounds very funny.  I've never heard anybody say like that.


----------



## Explorer41

ahvalj said:


> The reason is entirely casual. In the Old Russian there was a third number — the Dual. For the masculine nouns of the second declension and all nouns of the third declension the ending of the Nominative-Accusative Dual eventually became identical to the Genitive Singular (casually, the stress sometimes remaining different): «дъва стола», «дъвҍ мыши» (earlier the Gen. Sg. was -oed, then -o:d, the Nom.-Acc. Du. -oH, then -o:; resp. Gen. Sg. -eis, Nom.-Acc. Du. -iH, then -i: . When the Dual disappeared, people forgot what these forms meant and reanalyzed them as the Genitive singular. The forms of other declension types were replaced with their Genitive Singulars as well (so «дъвҍ сторонҍ» became «двҍ стороны» etc.). Since they were now used only after numerals, they became special count forms of the noun. Then this former Dual form started to be used not only after "two" but also after "three" and "four" and every other numeral ending on "two", "three" and "four" (22, 23, 24, 1782913102, etc.). A similar process occurred in some other slavic languages.


Thank you. I was wrong. That's what wrong posts are for -- they induce right ones  . Again, they demonstrate the language psychology of a contemporary native Russian, too  .


alevtinka said:


> I have a question:
> 
> I see two small dogs - Я вижу двух маленьких собак
> 
> But why:
> 
> I see thirty two small dogs - Я вижу тридцать две маленькие(х) собаки ?
> 
> My book writes 2 = 22 (in the sense of case change)



They are actually equal. But a rule is that sort of law which has exceptions 

By the way _"я вижу две маленькие/х собаки"_ is fully possible.

Also by the way: consider "он перевешал двадцать трёх солдат" (excuse me). On the contrary, it may sound better than "он перевешал двадцать три солдата". But of course, "я вижу двадцать две собаки" sounds many times better than "я вижу двадцать двух собак" (as I see, not only for me). It's bizarre.


----------



## ahvalj

DiPetrio said:


> Да никто так не говорит. "Я вижу тридцать две маленькие собаки".





Natalisha said:


> Does [Я вижу тридцать двух маленьких собак] also make sense ?
> It makes sense, but it sounds very funny.  I've never heard anybody say like that.



So, an illustration that, as I had written, *both* constructions sound funny — since the situation is almost unimaginable, the language forgot to develop an appropriate construction. The inanimate way is already percepted as wrong, while the animate way is still percepted as wrong. Anyway, we have to choose among these two variants.


----------



## Explorer41

It's not the number which makes fun. It's the verb "to see". Well, nobody ever reports that he has just seen thirty eight crows and a small dog. But we sometimes count things even more precisely -- in other contexts.


----------



## ahvalj

Explorer41 said:


> It's not the numerical expression which makes fun. It's the verb "to see". Well, nobody ever reports that he has just seen thirty eight crows and a small dog. But we sometimes count things even more precisely -- in other contexts.


OK. «Я завёл себе тридцать две собаки/Я завёл себе тридцати двух собак». Or in masculine: «я купил тридцать два цыплёнка/я купил тридцати двух цыплят». In any case, both variants are somewhat odd. The language still has not decided, which one to choose. Theoretically, the animate variant should be the only one acceptable, but so far it is not so.


----------



## ahvalj

alevtinka said:


> Does [Я вижу тридцать двух маленьких собак] also make sense ?



Oh, sorry, of course «тридцати двух». Otherwise, the discussion is correct.


----------



## Syline

тридцатИ двух?  
Why do you use here the genitive instead of the accusative?


----------



## ahvalj

Syline said:


> тридцатИ двух?
> Why do you use here the genitive instead of the accusative?


Because for animate objects the Genitive form is used when the Accusative coincides with the Nominative («я вижу мальчика» vs. «я вижу девочку»). I used to think everybody learns this at school.


----------



## Syline

ahvalj said:


> Because for animate objects the Genitive form is used when the Accusative coincides with the Nominative («я вижу мальчика» vs. «я вижу девочку»).


First, what do you mean by "when the Accusative coincides with the Nominative"? Мальчика - acc., мальчик - nom., девочку - acc., девочка - nom. I see no coincidence.  
Second, your example opposes "девочка" and "мальчик" and it illustrates what you said about "animate objects", so I must presume that one of them (девочка, obviously) is an inanimate object? 
And third, no, we did not learn *this* at school... as strange as it may seem.


----------



## ahvalj

Syline said:


> First, what do you mean by "when the Accusative coincides with the Nominative"? Мальчика - acc., мальчик - nom., девочку - acc., девочка - nom. I see no coincidence.


The Accusative in Russian has preserved its own distinctive ending only in the first declension («девочку/юношу»), in all other masculine and feminine words it became at some point phonetically identical with the nominative. Since the distinction between subject and object is crucial, the language had to bypass this limitation, so it started to use the Genitive form for animate objects — originally only for the masculine singular, but later also for the plural. The only declension type where this so far has not happened is the 3rd declension («я вижу мышь/мать любит дочь»).


----------



## ahvalj

Syline said:


> Second, your example opposes "девочка" and "мальчик" and it illustrates what you said about "animate objects", so I must presume that one of them (девочка, obviously) is an inanimate object?


My example opposes the declension type where the Accusative has preserved its ending («девочку») to the one where the original ending was lost and replaced with the Genitive form («мальчика»). In the Old Russian, the north-western dialects preserved the distinction between the Nominative and Accusative for the masculine nouns of the 2nd declension, so «Пётр видит Павла» looked like «Петре видить Павьлъ». In all the other Slavic languages, both forms merged, so the construction was modified to «Петръ видить Павьла», with the Genitive penetrating here most probably from the negative constructions, where «Петре/Петръ не видить Павьла» was ancient.


----------



## ahvalj

ahvalj said:


> My example opposes the declension type where the Accusative has preserved its ending («девочку») to the one where the original ending was lost and replaced with the Genitive form («мальчика»). In the Old Russian, the north-western dialects preserved the distinction between the Nominative and Accusative for the masculine nouns of the 2nd declension, so «Пётр видит Павла» looked like «Петре видить Павьлъ». In all the other Slavic languages, both forms merged, so the construction was modified to «Петръ видить Павьла», with the Genitive penetrating here most probably from the negative constructions, where «Петре/Петръ не видить Павьла» was ancient.


More details here: http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3126571


----------



## Syline

Well, you shouldn't compare numerals and nouns. Nouns have declension types, numerals have their own declension rules. And according to them, the numeral "тридцать" in the accusative will be "тридцать" regardless of the animateness of the noun it refers to.

PS
Numerals from 5 to 20 (inclusively) and 30 decline like nouns of the 3d declension type. 

Я пригласил тридцать друзей.
Я привел двадцать учеников. 
Я видел десять собак.


----------



## ahvalj

Syline said:


> Well, you shouldn't compare numerals and nouns. Nouns have declension types, numerals have their own declension rules. And according to them, the numeral "тридцать" in the accusative will be "тридцать" regardless of the animateness of the noun it refers to.


I don't think so. This «тридцать» most probably comes from the manner of some people not to decline the first component at all, so that they say «тридцатьдве собаки/тридцатьдвух собак/тридцатьдвум собакам» etc. I cannot imagine any other reason why «тридцати двух» is a Genitive opposed to «тридцать двух» as an Accusative — there are simply no prerequisites for this in the language.


----------



## Explorer41

ahvalj said:


> OK. «Я завёл себе тридцать две собаки/Я завёл себе тридцати двух собак». Or in masculine: «я купил тридцать два цыплёнка/я купил тридцати двух цыплят». In any case, both variants are somewhat odd. The language still has not decided, which one to choose. Theoretically, the animate variant should be the only one acceptable, but so far it is not so.


No oddness at all. "Я купил тридцать две курицы и четырнадцать петухов, и теперь имею ферму".
As of theory, I believe it can be applied mostly to the future of constructed languages, not to the future of natural ones. Using your own metaphor, ways of fashion are unpredictable. There is no real cause to choose either variant, as of now (but the first one is definitely that one which I (and Syline, as I see) will choose).


----------



## Syline

*ahvalj
*


> I don't think so.


Such is the rule, I'm just stating the fact. As for where it comes from, I don't know, but I know that I will never say "Я видел десяти собак".

*Explorer41
*Well, I'm not choosing between animateness and inanimateness of dogs and chickens from the examples, but between "тридцати" and "тридцать" if we treat these objects as animate ones.


----------



## ahvalj

Syline said:


> *ahvalj
> *
> Such is the rule, I'm just stating the fact. As for where it comes from, I don't know, but I know that I will never say "Я видел десяти собак".


The situation we are discussing is applicable only to the numerals ending with «два/три/четыре». For the rest, see the post #10 above.


----------



## Syline

ahvalj said:


> The situation we are discussing is applicable only to the numerals ending with «два/три/четыре». For the rest, see the post #10 above.


Every word in a compound numeral declines separately. Endings are not important when we decide how to decline the part "тридцать". I have never seen and heard "тридцати двух", "двадцати двух" and the like in the accusative form. 

In the post #10 you write about declension of nouns and adjectives after numerals, not about declension of numerals themselves. 

I found this, for example: 
_При сочетании одушевл. существительных с составными числительными, оканчивающимися на два, три, четыре, возможны два варианта: книжный, устаревающий типа проэкзаменовать *двадцать двух* студентов и нормативный – проэкзаменовать двадцать два студента. (http://rusgram.narod.ru/1366-1383.html)

_Can you provide examples supporting _your_ point of view?


----------



## ahvalj

Syline said:


> _При сочетании одушевл. существительных с составными числительными, оканчивающимися на два, три, четыре, возможны два варианта: книжный, устаревающий типа проэкзаменовать *двадцать двух* студентов и нормативный – проэкзаменовать двадцать два студента. (http://rusgram.narod.ru/1366-1383.html)
> 
> _Can you provide examples supporting _your_ point of view?


It is hard to find examples for such rare constructions — I will have to check an indefinite number of combinations. So, let's speak about the theory. Your example «двадцать двух» contradicts a fundamental rule of the Russian grammar — that all the declinable modifiers of a noun agree with it in gender, number and *case*. In the structure you advertize the first element mysteriously does not so. As I had written, I suspect this has come from the manner of speaking when all the elements of the compound numeral are merged, and therefore only the last element gets declined («двадцатьдвух»). If we regard your construction this way, it has its place in the Russian grammar; if we leave «двадцать двух» as is, then the authors of that reference should be better employed elsewhere.


----------



## ahvalj

ahvalj said:


> It is hard to find examples for such rare constructions — I will have to check an indefinite number of combinations. So, let's speak about the theory. Your example «двадцать двух» contradicts a fundamental rule of the Russian grammar — that all the declinable modifiers of a noun agree with it in gender, number and *case*. In the structure you advertize the first element mysteriously does not so. As I had written, I suspect this has come from the manner of speaking when all the elements of the compound numeral are merged, and therefore only the last element gets declined («двадцатьдвух»). If we regard your construction this way, it has its place in the Russian grammar; if we leave «двадцать двух» as is, then the authors of that reference should be better employed elsewhere.



OK, I have found myself where *I was wrong*. In the words of the third declension the Acc. Sg. does not coincide with the Gen. Sg. When discussing about «двадцать двух», I was regarding «двадцать» as a plural, while grammatically it is not. Anyway, the combination «двадцать двух», with two words, one in an inanimate form and the other in an animate one, is so unusual in the overall structure of the language that it sounds totally odd to me and apparently to the speakers (even if they don't realize why), so it had to be replaced in some direction — «двадцать две» with the completely inanimate Accusative is one of the possible solutions.


----------



## Explorer41

ahvalj said:


> OK, I have found myself where *I was wrong*. In the words of the third declension the Acc. Sg. does not coincide with the Gen. Sg. When discussing about «двадцать двух», I was regarding «двадцать» as a plural, while grammatically it is not. Anyway, the combination «двадцать двух», with two words, one in an inanimate form and the other in an animate one, is so unusual in the overall structure of the language that it sounds totally odd to me and apparently to the speakers (even if they don't realize why), so it had to be replaced in some direction — «двадцать две» with the completely inanimate Accusative is one of the possible solutions.


er... No, why? It would be clearly true, if you tell of "миллион" (because "миллион" is actually an inanimate noun and its Plural Genitive is distinct from its actual Plural Accusative). But if "двадцать" would be a noun, it certainly would be a feminine noun of the third declension ("двадцатью" - "мышью", "статью", but "колодезем"); and once it would be so, there would be no difference between its Plural Genitive and Plural Accusative, so one could not say if it is animate or inanimate. And we freely say "увидать двадцать одну мышь" without so much trouble. There should be another cause.

For example, this: in Nominative and Accusative cases words like "восемь", "двадцать", "тридцать", "сто" tend to behave in a clause like nouns -- they want to govern counted nouns, not to modify them: "двадцать чайников" (not "двадцати чайники"), "двадцать слонов" (not "двадцати слоны"). _Tout ça est bel et bien_, but if a counted noun is animate, is in the Accusative case and preserves its animateness in the phrase (unlike "курица" does in "я купил две курицы"), then the words "два", "три" and "четыре" should modify it and thus agree with it in gender, Plural number and Accusative case, which looks then like Genitive: "я заметил двух птиц". Thus, if we want to tell that we saw twenty two birds, then we have a contradiction: "двадцать" should govern the birds (and birds are actually in the form equivalent to Genitive, which supports the feeling), but "двух" should agree with the birds (and it apparently does). So we say the phrase and wonder in the meantime, what is the real structure of the phrase. No, the phrase gets said OK, but we may feel uncomfortable due to this.

But in phrases involving numbers like "двадцать одну" or "двадцать восемь" there is no such contradiction -- we clearly see, who is the head of the clan. In the first case, it's a counted noun, in the second case, it's "двадцать восемь".


----------



## ahvalj

Explorer41 said:


> er... No, why? It would be clearly true, if you tell of "миллион" (because "миллион" is actually an inanimate noun and its Plural Genitive is distinct from its actual Plural Accusative). But if "двадцать" would be a noun, it certainly would be a feminine noun of the third declension ("двадцатью" - "мышью", "статью", but "колодезем"); and once it would be so, there would be *no difference between its Plural Genitive and Plural Accusative*, so one could not say if it is animate or inanimate. And we freely say "увидать двадцать одну мышь" without so much trouble. There should be another cause.
> 
> For example, this: in Nominative and Accusative cases words like "восемь", "двадцать", "тридцать", "сто" tend to behave in a clause like nouns -- they want to govern counted nouns, not to modify them: "двадцать чайников" (not "двадцать чайники"), "двадцать слонов" (not "двадцати слонов"). Tout ça est bel et bien, but if a counted noun is animate, is in the Accusative case and preserves its animateness in the phrase (unlike "курица" does in "я купил две курицы"), then the words "два", "три" and "четыре" should modify it and thus agree with it in gender, Plural number and Accusative case, which looks then like Genitive: "я заметил двух птиц". Thus, if we want to tell that we saw twenty two birds, then we have a contradiction: "двадцать" should govern the birds (and birds are actually in the form equivalent to Genitive, which supports the feeling), but "двух" should agree with the birds (and it apparently does). So we say the phrase and wonder in the meantime, what is the real structure of the phrase. No, the phrase gets said OK, but we may feel uncomfortable due to this.
> 
> But in phrases involving numbers like "двадцать одну" or "двадцать восемь" there is no such contradiction -- we clearly see, who is the head of the clan. In the first case, it's a counted noun, in the second case, it's "двадцать восемь".


I seem to have understood your argumentation, but my fault was that I was mistakenly regarding «двадцать» as a plural and thus expecting a Genitive form: in the third declension, in the animate nouns, the Accusative coincides with the Genitive («я вижу мышь/я вижу мышей»).


----------

