# All Slavic: free dative - dative of interest



## Nino83

Hello everyone.
I'd like to ask you if the use of free datives in order to indicate the person that is interested or damaged by an action is present in your language. I know it's possible in Czech, Slovak and Polish, I'd like to ask you if the following construction is possible in South Slavic and East Slavic languages.
It is possible in Romance languages and in German too.

Piotr rozbił *mi* (dative) samochód. (Polish)
Pietro *mi* (dative) ha rotto la macchina. (Italian)
Peter hat *ihm* (dative) das Auto zerstört. (German)
*Peter broke/destroyed the car *to me* (impossible in English)
*Peter broke/destroyed my (possessive adjective) car. (English)

As you can see, in English (in Dutch and in Nordic Germanic languages) you can't use the dative case in these cases. They use the possessive adjective but the meaning is somewhat diferent because in the Polish, Italian, German construction we don't say that the car is ours (i.e it's not necessarly our car), but we point out that this fact happened to us.

For example, you lend me your car but some people destroy your car while I'm using it. They destroy the car "to me" but the car is yours.

*Mi* (dative) hanno rotto la *tua* macchina. (Italian)
Sie haben *ihm* (dative) *dein* Auto zerstört. (German)
*They broke/destroyed your car to me (impossible in English)

Is it possible in Polish and in your language?

Rozbili *mi* (dative) *twój* samochód. (Polish)

Are the Romance and German constructions possible in your language?

Thank you


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> Rozbili *mi* (dative) *twój* samochód. (Polish)


It is correct, but doesn't sound right to me.
I would say "Ktoś rozbił twój samochód". Somebody broke your car.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Karton Realista.
So a sentence like "Ktoś rozbił mi twój samochód" sounds odd, isn't it?


----------



## Irbis

It is possible (actually preferred) in Slovenian.
Peter mi je razbil avto.
Razbili so mi tvoj avto.


----------



## Nino83

Irbis said:


> It is possible (actually preferred) in Slovenian.


Thank you very much, Irbis, very interesting!


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> Thank you, Karton Realista.
> So a sentence like "Ktoś rozbił mi twój samochód" sounds odd, isn't it?


Ktoś rozbił twój samochód or ktoś rozbił Ci samochód. Your sentence seems also correct, but as you said it sounds kinda odd. 
The sentence "Ukradli mi twoje pieniądze" they stole me your money sounds pretty natural. 
Ktoś ukradł mi twoje pieniądze or ktoś zabrał mi twoje pieniądze is better IMO.


----------



## Nino83

Karton Realista said:


> Ktoś ukradł mi twoje pieniądze or ktoś zabrał mi twoje pieniądze is better IMO.


Thank you, Karton Realista.
These sentences, with verbs like "to steal" and "to take" are more common in Italian too, so it is probably a semantic matter while I was told in another thread that in German it's not possibile this sentence with the verb "to break" ("zerstört").
So, in Romance languages and Polish it is possible but not common, in Slovenian it's common while in German it is not.
Anyway, with other verbs, like "to steal" and "to take", this construction (with both "mi" and "twoje") is normal.
Thank you all! 

Another question.
How would you translate this sentence?
The car broke down *on* me. (English)
*Mi* (mi) si è rotta (się zepsuł) la macchina (samochód). (Italian)
Samochód *mi* się zepsuł. (Polish?)


----------



## Gochna

Karton Realista said:


> It is correct, but doesn't sound right to me.
> I would say "Ktoś rozbił twój samochód". Somebody broke your car.



I would respectfully disagree with Karton Realista.

*IMHO, Ktoś rozbił twój samochód* does not give any indication as to who was driving/using the car when it got broken, whereas *Rozbili mi twój samochód* clearly indicates that *I* was using *your* car when *someone* damaged it. 

I believe that this would be true for French, Spanish and Italian. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Nino83

Gochna said:


> *Rozbili mi twój samochód* clearly indicates that *I* was using *your* car when *someone* damaged it. I believe that this would be true for French, Spanish and Italian.


Thank you, Gochna! 
Yes, in Italian and in other Romance languages it has the same meaning.


----------



## Karton Realista

Gochna said:


> *IMHO, Ktoś rozbił twój samochód* does not give any indication as to who was driving/using the car when it got broken, whereas *Rozbili mi twój samochód* clearly indicates that *I* was using *your* car when *someone* damaged it.


I don't disagree with that, what I say is that the first sentence in bold is more likely to be used over the second one.
It doesn't give full information about the accident (who was driving a car), but it doesn't need to, the info will be provided in the context. And who in hell gives person x their car and needs to be reminded that they gave it person x? It is obvious that it was me who was driving, you gave me it yesterday. And Polish people are quick to shift the blame, they certainly wouldn't mention themselves 
All depends on the context, whether that info is required (i took your car without permission) or not.


----------



## Nino83

Karton Realista said:


> And Polish people are quick to shift the blame, they certainly wouldn't mention themselves
> All depends on the context, whether that info is required (i took your car without permission) or not.


Another example: "Rozbili mu twój samochód". 
Is this sentence more common? In this case we don't need to escape our responsibilities.


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> Another example: "Rozbili mu twój samochód".
> Is this sentence more common? In this case we don't need to escape our responsibilities.


The blame part was a joke. 
The person driving the car can be mentioned, but doesn't need to. All depends if it was mentioned before. Polish doesn't tolerate pointless repeating.


----------



## Nino83

Karton Realista said:


> The person driving the car can be mentioned, but doesn't need to. All depends if it was mentioned before. Polish doesn't tolerate pointless repeating.


Yes, it is an extreme case. Also in Italian it is considered redundant, but grammatically correct, while with other verbs (like "to steal" or "to take") it is more common.
Thank you


----------



## Sobakus

I think this is another type of construction, but it's relevant here: how would you render "on me" as explained here in your language?

*English*: _"I was looking after the neighbours' dog for the week-end, and it died on me."_

The dog was neither mine nor do I feel any emotional attachment to it, but I'm unhappy about the fact that it died because it affects me personally (maybe I'll be blamed for it). It doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, it augments its expressiveness and sounds quite colloquial.

Will the Dative work here? In Russian it doesn't, even though it works in _«разбили *мне* *твою* машину»_. _«У меня» _(to-at Genitive) sort of works, but is ambiguous (normally means "my dog") and without expressing unhappiness_. _I think this is because there it's the Dative of indirect object, as in _"I fixed him his car", _and thus is distinct from the emotional intensifier/malefactor marker "on me" which has no equivalent in Russian.


----------



## pbosakov

In Bulgarian we do have this form, but it's complicated by the fact that it _sounds_ the same as the possessive.

The dative declension of the personal pronouns has two forms, a long one and a short one.
The possessive pronouns have a long/short form too.

The two short forms (dative and possessive) sound _exactly the same_, but are considered separate types of pronouns, with different meaning and grammatical function (one is a complement, the other is a modifier). In practice, they can be told apart only by their position in the phrase.

For example:
"откраднаха *ми* парите *ти*"
(they stole *your* money *from me*) - here "*ми*" is dative and "*ти*" is possessive.

"откраднаха *ти* парите *ми*"
(they stole *my* money *from you*) - here it's the other way round, "*ти*" is dative and "*ми*" is possessive.

These five phrases are all translated in English as "they broke my car":

"счупиха *ми* колата" - this is the most often used form. This is the dative "of interest" that you speak of: it's not explicitly said that the car is mine, but it's implicitly understood.
"*мене* счупиха колата" - long form of the dative. Archaic and not used except in the case below:
"*на мене ми* счупиха колата" - double complement. Sometimes used for emphasis. I think it's used in Italian in the same way ("*a me mi* hanno rotto la macchina")
"счупиха колата *ми*" - here we have again "ми", but now it is a possessive: they broke _my_ car.
"счупиха *моята* кола" - long form of the possessive


----------



## francisgranada

Ciao Nino. Perhaps interesting for you ...

As to _Rozbili *mi/mu* *twój* samochód_, in Slovak it works exactly like in Polish: _Rozbili *mi/mu tvoje *auto_ (_tvoje_ because _auto _is neuter, while _samochód _is masculine). I.e. _*mi *_and _*mu *_are unstressed dative forms (clitics) of the 1st pers.sg. and 3rd pers.sg.masc., respectively.

BUT the Slovak equivalent of _*Me *duele el pie/*Mi *fa male il piede/My foot hurts_ is "_Bolí *ma *noha" _(_bolí _- it hurts, _noha _- foot). Now, _*ma *_is not dative, but the unstressed genitive/accusative form of the 1st pers.sg. (The genitive and accusative have the same form _ma_, however I suppose logically it should be genitive in this case).

A propos, I guess in Polish it is analogously "_Boli *mnie *noga"_, but I've encountered also occurrences of "_Boli *mi *noga". _Is the latter erroneous? Or, which is the correct version?


----------



## Karton Realista

francisgranada said:


> A propos, I guess in Polish it is analogously "_Boli *mnie *noga"_, but I've encountered also occurrences of "_Boli *mi *noga". _Is the latter erroneous? Or, which is the correct version?


The second one sounds retarded, honestly.


----------



## Encolpius

francisgranada said:


> BUT the Slovak equivalent of _*Me *duele el pie/*Mi *fa male il piede/My foot hurts_ is "_Bolí *ma *noha" _(_bolí _- it hurts, _noha _- foot). Now, _*ma *_is not dative, but the unstressed genitive/accusative form of the 1st pers.sg. (The genitive and accusative have the same form _ma_, however I suppose *logically it should be genitive* in this case).



What makes you think it should be genitive?


----------



## francisgranada

Encolpius said:


> What makes you think it should be genitive?


The fact that the genitive case can express the possession, e.g. syn svojho otca, dcéra svojej matky.


----------



## Encolpius

But you agree, francis, it is accusative (I have always found it bizarre why accusative and cannot find any logical answer)
Matku už 10 letí bolí záda (accusative in Czech) not matky (genitive)


----------



## Karton Realista

Encolpius said:


> But you agree, francis, it is accusative (I have always found it bizarre why accusative and cannot find any logical answer)
> Matku už 10 letí bolí záda (accusative in Czech) not matky (genitive)


(koho?, čo?) bolí.
That's why genitive. You say whom does it hurt. 
Does this sentence mean My mother's ass hurts already for 10 years?


----------



## francisgranada

Encolpius said:


> ...  Matku už 10 letí bolí záda (accusative in Czech) not matky (genitive)


Yes, I know. That's why I have written "I _suppose _... it _should _be genitive" and not "it _is_ genitive". But e.g. in Eastern Slovakia many people would say "Matk*e* už 10 rokov bolí ... " (which is  dative). All in all, there is some confusion around this and a deeper analysis should be done ... 





Encolpius said:


> ... (I have always found it bizarre why accusative and cannot find any logical answer) ...


A possible explanation _ad hoc _could be that the verb _bolí_ admits (or better: admitted) also the usage of accusative, more or less in the sense of _trápi _or_ raní_ (the accusative in _noha_ _trápi matku_ is not bizarre). If so, then it's rather a transitive usage of the verb _bolieť_ and not a kind of possessive (even if today we perceive it this way).





Karton Realista said:


> (koho?, čo?) bolí.
> That's why genitive...


How do you say it in Polish: _matkę/matki/matce boli noga_ or something else? And also, how do they say it in the Southern Slavic languages?

Well, the very substance of what I wanted to say in my post #16 (as reaction to the original question) is that, in some cases, in (at least) the Western Slavic languages we have another grammatical case, even if from the "Romance point of view" we would expect dative.


----------



## Karton Realista

francisgranada said:


> How do you say it in Polish: _matkę/matki/matce boli noga_ or something else?


Matkę boli noga, but matce od trzech lat doskwiera ból nogi. Hope you get why. 


francisgranada said:


> But e.g. in Eastern Slovakia many people would say "Matk*e* už 10 rokov bolí ... " (which is dative).


This makes little sense. Couldn't it be that this is some sort of Polish loan (from matkę)? I've noticed that Východniari take a lot of their words from Polish.


----------



## francisgranada

....


Karton Realista said:


> Matkę boli noga ...


 Ok, so  accusative (not genitive) in this case, also in Polish. 





> This makes little sense. Couldn't it be that this is some sort of Polish loan (from matkę)? I've noticed that Východniari take a lot of their words from Polish.


It is not so simple ... Wherever the "vychodňare" had taken various loanwords from, from the linguistic point of view the Eastern Slovak dialects represent a subgroup of Western Slavic languages on the continuum approximately between the today's  Slovak and Polish (and partially Rusyn). I.e. they have their own grammar and phonetics (even if many of the proper "vychodňare" do not realize it ...) as whichever language. So _matke_ from the Polish _matkę_ is very improbable/inconsistent (especially for grammatical reasons), in my opinion.


----------



## Karton Realista

francisgranada said:


> they have their own grammar and phonetics (even if many of the proper "vychodňare" do not realize it ...) as whichever language. So _matke_ from the Polish _matkę_ is very improbable/inconsistent (especially for grammatical reasons), in my opinion.


Well, I supposed that it's analogic with Silesian, which has taken some grammatical structures from Czech (others are archaic Polish).
What I was saying was: maybe the easterners have a similar accusative to Polish. But that's just a digression and itit's probably wrong.


francisgranada said:


> Ok, so accusative (not genitive) in this case, also in Polish.


Usually we use the same cases for the same things.
An exception would be mówić po polsku, słowacku - hovoriť po poľsky, slovensky.


----------



## Encolpius

Karton Realista said:


> Usually we use the same cases for the same things. An exception would be mówić po polsku, słowacku - hovoriť po poľsky, slovenský.



Who we? Do you mean Slovaks and Poles?


----------



## Karton Realista

Encolpius said:


> Who we? Do you mean Slovaks and Poles?


Western Slavs in general. In Russian, for a contrast, there are phrases that are very suprising because Russians from time to time use different cases in similar sentences.


----------



## Daniel.N

This is all perfectly possible in Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin, and very frequent in speech. *Petar mi je razbio auto*, etc.

But:

*Razbili su mi tvoj auto*. = this is _kind of_ possible, but sounds strange, dative collides with the possessive.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Daniel!


----------

