# All Slavic languages: inanimate nouns becoming animate



## Encolpius

Hello, the masculine declension makes difference for inanimate and animate nouns. But sometimes inanimate masc. nouns take animate declension endings. I know this works in Czech, I am not sure about Slovak, it also works in Polish and BSC. So, it is possible to say: 

Mam Mercedes*a*. (instead of Mercedes) Polish
Imam Mercedesa. (BCS)

How about other languages, when do you use animate endings for *things*? How about *cars*? 

Thanks.


----------



## Duya

Well, actually, animate declension for cars is not standard, literary BCS. But many (most?) people would use it indeed in everyday conversation. That would be the case for many names of branded products used in everyday life: _Ja imam epla, a ti samsunga_.


----------



## marco_2

Hello Encolpius, I guess by "animal declension" you mean the situation when Accusative = Genitive for masculine nouns. It is true, as you noticed, for the makes of cars _(mam mercedesa, opla _etc.), for dances _(tańczę twista, menueta ...), _for the names of mushrooms _(znalazłem prawdziwka, rydza ...) _and, of course, for cigarettes _(zapalić papierosa). _In non-standard Polish you can also hear such forms for other nouns, e.g. *chcesz torta?*  *włóż buta*  *mam smaka na...* _(I fancy...), _though they are considered incorrect.


----------



## Encolpius

marco_2 said:


> Hello Encolpius, I guess by "animal declension" you mean the situation when Accusative = Genitive for masculine nouns. ...



Exactly, thanks.


----------



## Azori

Encolpius said:


> So, it is possible to say:
> 
> Mam Mercedes*a*. (instead of Mercedes) Polish
> Imam Mercedesa. (BCS)


It would be possible to hear both "mám Mercedes" and "mám Mercedesa" in Slovak. Not sure if the latter would be considered grammatically correct, though.


----------



## Encolpius

One of typical examples in Polish is: mieć kaca [to have a hangover] < kac


----------



## Thomas1

In Polish it is also possible with many names of sports or games: grać w hokeja/tenisa/badmintona/kosza/pokera/brydża/krykieta/niemca/tysiąca/bilarda itd.


----------



## Encolpius

Thomas1 said:


> In Polish it is also possible with many names of sports or games: grać w hokeja/tenisa/badmintona/kosza/pokera/brydża/krykieta/niemca/tysiąca/bilarda itd.



Interesting. Only sports and games? That does not work in Czech...


----------



## swintok

In Ukrainian, masculine nouns (type II) decline identically regardless of whether they are animate or inanimate with the exception of the dative, vocative, and accusative cases.  In the dative case, the standard ending for masculine animate nouns is -ові and for inanimate it is -у.  That having been said, animate nouns can also take the -у ending if this makes sense stylistically. Inanimate nouns that have been anthropomorphised will take the animate case endings.  If you use the vocative case for an inanimate object, you are by definition anthropomorphising it and therefore need to give it the animate case endings. 

The accusative case endings of masculine animate nouns are the same as those of the genitive case, whereas those for inanimate nouns are the same as those of the nominative case.  There are four situations, however, where inanimate nouns will take genitive endings in the accusative case:
1.  negative sentences (with some exceptions):  Чи ти знайшов стілець?  Ні, я стілця не знайшов.
2.  partitives:  Передай, будь-ласка, хліб (Please pass the bread).  Передай, будь-ласка, хліба (Please pass some bread).  
3.  anthropomorphised objects:  Він любив того човна, як свою жінку.
4.  There is another situation in which inanimate objects can take either the animate (genitive) or inanimate (nominative) endings in the accusative case.  Compare:
Він написав листа до мами.
Він написав лист до мами.
Both are grammatically correct, but there is a subtle difference in flavour that is very hard to explain.  Even linguists do not agree on the logic behind these cases.  Some argue there is a partitive aspect, others claim it is a hangover from when the language differentiated between definite and indefinite indicators.  Whole dissertations have been devoted to this phenomenon with no resolution or agreement.  Suffice to say that it is one of those annoying intangibles one has to be aware of when learning the language, without being able to understand it and it only comes once one develps a feel for the language.  I know it does not exist in Russian, but do not know whether it exists in other Slavic languages.


----------



## bibax

In Czech we say:

zahrát si pokra, cvika/cvička, ferbla (pokr, cvik/cviček, ferbl - card games);

koupit chleba, sýra, ...;

But I am afraid that these forms are in fact (partitive) genitive.


----------



## Encolpius

swintok said:


> 4.  There is another situation in which inanimate objects can take either the animate (genitive) or inanimate (nominative) endings in the accusative case.  Compare:
> Він написав листа до мами.
> Він написав лист до мами.



It is really interesting. This can work only with the word лист? Or with any noun? Thanks


----------



## Sobakus

Well that's quite new to me, there's nothing similar going on in Russian, though it _is_ possible to decline an object as animate in speech when there's serious confusion about the subject and the object (such as in case of inversion), but it will be mostly jokular. I think it's not as much of a problem for Russians as we use _у меня есть Nom._ instead of _я имею Acc._.


----------



## Thomas1

Encolpius said:


> Interesting. Only sports and games? That does not work in Czech...


Plus those given by Marco. It doesn't work with all of them, though. For instance: grać w futbol/baseball; uprawiać boks. These are the only examples I can think of at the moment. I think that these equaling the accusative with the genitive are in the majority.


----------

