# Bosnian (BCS): numbers 7 and 30 (declension)



## Al-Indunisiy

Sorry, last time I forgot to mention which language. To get my point across, I'll use some examples:


1. Dative: 
I give the woman a gift. = Dajem ženi poklon. 
I give a gift to 7 (or 30) women. = ?

2. Locative:
We travel by car. = Putujemo autom.
We travel by 7 (or 30) cars. = ?

3. Genitive:
This is the picture of a man. = Ovo je slika muža
This is a picture of 7 (or 30) men. = ?

So how would those be?


----------



## phosphore

As, on one hand, after "davati" you are obliged to use a dative and, on the other, numerals 5-20 don't have dative forms, you need to rephrase your sentence. You can say "sedam žena je dobilo poklon od mene"="seven women received a gift from me" or something like that.

In the case of "putovati" you use an instrumental, and not a locative. There you can say "putujemo sa sedam automobila" which is normatively incorrect but widely used in speech or rephrase your sentence once more and say something like "putujemo u sedam automobila".

The last case poses no problems and you would say "slika sedam muškaraca". Pay attention though that we say "čovek" or "muškarac" for "man" and "muž" for "husband" and that "picture of a man" would be "slika jednog muškarca".


----------



## doorman

phosphore said:


> In the case of "putovati" you use an instrumental, and not a locative. There you can say "putujemo sa sedam automobila" which is normatively incorrect but widely used in speech or rephrase your sentence once more and say something like "putujemo u sedam automobila".



Instrumental answers the question(s) _s kim? s čim?_, thus I would say _u sedam automobila_ is not correct, as it answers locative's question(s) _u komu? u čemu?_.

It could be true that one should say _u sedam automobila_ and not _sa sedam automobila_ (I must confess I'm a bit confused about it, but would however use _sa_ and not _u_ here), but if so, your thesis that _putovati_ needs an instrumental is not correct.

Al-Indunisiy, we have discussed numerous times _the numbers problem_, and it seems we haven't yet found a _solution_ to it, so I hope this topic won't discourage you!


----------



## phosphore

doorman said:


> Instrumental answers the question(s) _s kim? s čim?_, thus I would say _u sedam automobila_ is not correct, as it answers locative's question(s) _u komu? u čemu?_.


 
I said instrumental because Al-Indunisiy used an instrumental in the example but wrote it was a locative. That doesn't mean that any phrase standing with "putovati" needs to be in the instrumental case. Compare:

Došli su vozom. (vozom-instr.)
Došli su u dva navrata. (u dva navrata-loc.)

The construction with the preposition "u" is both grammatical and accepted by the norm, which you can't say about the one with the preposition "s". You can see an example of that construction here.



> Na šire područje zadarskog zaleđa hrvatski građani srpske nacionalnosti s boravištem u Srbiji *doputovali su na izbore u 30 autobusa,* objavila je PU zadarska.


----------



## DenisBiH

> 1. Dative:
> I give the woman a gift. = Dajem ženi poklon.
> I give a gift to 7 (or 30) women. = ?


*Dajem poklon za svih sedam žena*
Dajem poklon grupi od sedam žena.
Sedam žena dobija poklon od mene.

"Za svih" seems to be popular judging by Google.



> 2. Locative:
> We travel by car. = Putujemo autom.
> We travel by 7 (or 30) cars. = ?


*Putujemo u 7 auta.* - sounds most natural to me
Putujemo sa 7 auta.




> 3. Genitive:
> This is the picture of a man. = Ovo je slika muža
> This is a picture of 7 (or 30) men. = ?


Ovo je slika sedmorice muškaraca. - declined, summary noun
Ovo je slika sedam muškaraca. - non-declined, simple numeral
*Ovo je slika na kojoj je sedam muškaraca *- rephrased

I would probably use the sentences in bold.


----------



## doorman

phosphore said:


> I said instrumental because Al-Indunisiy used an instrumental in the example but wrote it was a locative. That doesn't mean that any phrase standing with "putovati" needs to be in the instrumental case.



Ok, you're right. Actually, re-reading your previous post I realised I misinterpreted it  Sorry, my bad 

P.S. I don't understand the redness and strikethrough font of _thus_ in your quote of my post ...


----------



## phosphore

doorman said:


> P.S. I don't understand the redness and strikethrough font of _thus_ in your quote of my post ...


 
The first of two phrases by no means _implies_ the second


----------



## doorman

phosphore said:


> The first of two phrases by no means _implies_ the second



Well, now it doesn't any more, but it did at the time 

Ok, off topic over


----------

