# пять человека погибли



## Thomas1

There are two things that are bugging me, yesterday I read an article and saw:
пять человека погибли 
I know we use the supposed genitive singular with numerals from 2 to 4, but here I am at a loss, why is there singular genitive?  The plural genitive of человек is человек and this is the form I’d expect.

Another question: when do you use человек in plural? To my Polish ears it sounds kind of really novel, but that’s what makes languages so interesting.  I’d be normally inclined to use люди when referring to plural of человек, is there any difference between their usage? When would you use the former and not the later? And finally what is the plural nominative of человек (could it be человеки)?



Большое спасибо,
Том


----------



## Vladislav

Tom, the correct form is:
пять человек погибли 

or
погибли пять человек 

The plural of человек is always люди. It's like in English: a person, but people (not persons).

человеки is incorrect, you can't even imagine how funny does it sound.  

Hope it helps.


----------



## Etcetera

Of sourse, it should be пять человек погибли. Don't let Russian news agencies deceive you! 
Frankly speaking, what I read in news headlines on the Net sometimes makes me shriek. Why can't they find at least one literate person to proofread what they're writing?..


----------



## scriptum

Thomas1 said:


> I’d be normally inclined to use люди when referring to plural of человек, is there any difference between their usage? When would you use the former and not the later?


 
The difference between the two plurals is stylistic. "Человеки" is very archaic. You will never have an occasion to use it, unless you fancy translating Homer.
"Се человеки могучие, слава сынов земнородных!" (Iliad).


----------



## Maroseika

I can suggest much less exotic example, still quite in use: "все мы люди, все мы человеки".
Funny thing: according to Dahl original proverb said: "Все мы люди, да не все человеки".


----------



## Crescent

Thomas1 said:


> There are two things that are bugging me, yesterday I read an article and saw:
> пять человека погибли



Tom, in my opinion, it was just a clumsy mistake, or typo, that the writer of this article made. Surely, if he was Russian, he would have realised that this sounds terrible. (even to me! And of course, we all know how sometimes, I have these moments when, to me, sentences sound _just fine_, and I am convinced that they are right, and then you tell me that they are wrong, and you can't say so. ) 

The only justification that I can find to this mistake, is - look how close the letters *к* and *а *are to each other on the keyboard! 

As for the plural of ''человек'' - _человеки_, as the others have already said, do not exist.  

But I wonder if it is grammatically correct to say: 5 *людей* погибли ? 
It seems a little bit odd to me - I would personally use ''человек'' here as well, but...who knows?


----------



## Maroseika

Crescent said:


> But I wonder if it is grammatically corect to say: 5 *людей* погибли ?
> It seems a little bit odd to me - I would personally use ''человек'' here as well, but...who knows?


No, Crescent, it's impossible to say *5 людей*, because люди means an indefinite number of people, though I'm not sure it's possible to say in English - *number of people*.
What a tricky thing in the both languages!


----------



## Crescent

Maroseika said:


> No, Crescent, it's impossible to say *5 людей*, because люди means an indefinite number of people, though I'm not sure it's possible to say in English - *number of people*.
> What a tricky thing in the both languages!



Thank you, Maroseika, for your explanation. I think I get it now! It's like you can't say: шесть молоков, семь маслов.. yes?  Because they are indefinite quantities.  
As for your question, '_'number of people_'' is perfectly..perfect. I'm not sure why you're doubting it, though. It is indeed the correct way to say it. ''_Number of persons_'' sounds....odd, but it is also (I think) possible, but a little old fashioned nowadays.


----------



## I Am Herenow

scriptum said:


> "Се человеки могучие, слава сынов земнородных!" (Iliad).


 
What does "Се" mean? :S


----------



## Crescent

I Am Herenow said:


> What does "Се" mean? :S



_Ce_ озночает "эти" на старинном русском.

Се человеки могучие = Эти могучие люди. 

Надеюсь, это Вам теперь понятно.


----------



## Thomas1

Thank you all very much. 

Another question: am I right to think that человек is used in plural but not in the nominative?



Maroseika said:


> No, Crescent, it's impossible to say *5 людей*, because люди means an indefinite number of people, though I'm not sure it's possible to say in English - *number of people*.
> What a tricky thing in the both languages!


What do you mean by indefinite? What makes it more indefinite than пять человек погибли please? I think I would also be more inclined to use something different from людей because even in Polish we would use another word.


As for _number_ IMHO it is possible but I'd add an article in front of it _a/the number of people_.

Tom


----------



## scriptum

I Am Herenow said:


> What does "Се" mean? :S


Behold


----------



## Maroseika

Thomas1 said:


> What do you mean by indefinite? What makes it more indefinite than пять человек погибли please?
> 
> 
> 
> I meant that *люди* means imdefinite (not definite) number of people, maybe because there is not singular from *люди* (*люд *is also Plural, or better say Collective) and that's why cannot be used with
> counting Numerals.
> However now I think I was not completely right, because there is a colloquial manner of using *люди* with Numerals:
> Слышь, Владимир Николаевич, у Манохина на объекте трубу прорвало, дашь ему 10 людей твоих?
> Ought to be: *десятерых людей.*
> And: Ладно, дам ему своих людей человек пять.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kolan

I am just thinking why this error could happen in the article. It's quite possible that at the time of writing there were less than 5 victims, but when it was ready for posting, that number could raise to 5. A quick, last-minute correction of the finished text could leave such a lapse.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> No, Crescent, it's impossible to say *5 людей*, because люди means an indefinite number of people, though I'm not sure it's possible to say in English - *number of people*.


It depends on how you want to read *5* in Russian: *пять человек* или *пятеро людей*, both being perfect Russian.

However, one can also say *пятеро человек*, but *пять людей *sounds illiterate*.*


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> It depends on how you want to read *5* in Russian: *пять человек* или *пятеро людей*, both being perfect Russian.


I'm afraid that Collective Numerals cannot be written in figures by no means.


----------



## Etcetera

Crescent said:


> _Ce_ озночает "эти" на старинном русском.


Дневнерусском.
И, по-моему, _се _означает "это". Например, в Новом Завете: _Се человек._


----------



## Maroseika

Etcetera said:


> И, по-моему, _се _означает "это". Например, в Новом Завете: _Се человек._


В таком контексте *се *означает* вот.*


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> I'm afraid that Collective Numerals cannot be written in figures by no means.


In the news article any numeral may be written in figures saving space in such way and improving readability.


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> In the news article any numeral may be written in figures saving space in such way and improving readability.


I don't think so and have never came across anything like that - I mean real newspaper articles, and not internet ones.
Besides, how can you know what's meant if it's written in figures: пятеро or пять?
10 негритят пошли купаться в море.


----------



## scriptum

I’m a bit surprised that so far nobody has mentioned yet the possibility of "5 человек погибл*о*". This turn of speech seems to become rare in modern Russian. I wonder why.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> I don't think so and have never came across anything like that - I mean real newspaper articles, and not internet ones.
> Besides, how can you know what's meant if it's written in figures: пятеро or пять?
> 10 негритят пошли купаться в море.


The newswriting style is well known for its certain abbreviations, including numerals. This leaves some room for the variants, like *пять* или *пятеро*, if both could be properly understood.

I just picked up a random printed newspaper, ВЕДОМОСТИ, www.vedomosti.ru, where one could see both types of presentation, in figures and in words.

*10* in your example could technically read as *десять, десятеро, десяток.* According to the rhyme, *десяток* sounds better.


----------



## Kolan

scriptum said:


> I’m a bit surprised that so far nobody has mentioned yet the possibility of "5 человек погибл*о*". This turn of speech seems to become rare in modern Russian. I wonder why.


Это предложение - безличное, если читать 5 как *пять*. *5 человек* в нём не является предикатом и не согласуется с глаголом.

Однако, если 5 = *пятеро*, то без дополнительных соображений нельзя сказать, личное оно или безличное. 

Я не могу сказать, какая форма, личная или безличная, сейчас встречается чаще и какая встречалась чаще раньше.


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> I just picked up a random printed newspaper, ВЕДОМОСТИ, www.vedomosti.ru, where one could see both types of presentation, in figures and in words.


I wonder how could you know it was Collective if written in figures? No way. 
That's why it's never written in figures.
*



10 in your example could technically read as десять, десятеро, десяток. According to the rhyme, десяток sounds better.
		
Click to expand...

*Nice idea.
Next strophe should be devoted to девяток негритят, shouldn't it?


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> Это предложение - безличное, если читать 5 как *пять*. *5 человек* в нём не является предикатом и не согласуется с глаголом.
> 
> .


*5 человек*, на мой взгляд, вполне является предикатом и правильно согласуется с глаголом *погибло*, поскольку представляет собою нераздельное множество. Именно в этом отличие такого варианта от *5 человек погибли.*
Такие предложение не следует путать с действительно безличными, напр.:
*Семерых матросов унесло в открытое море.*
*Матросы* тут - дополнение в косвенном падеже, в то время как *5 человек* в предыдущем примере - подлежащее в именительном падеже.
Обратите внимание также на переходность глагола.


> Однако, если 5 = *пятеро*, то без дополнительных соображений нельзя сказать, личное оно или безличное.


*Пятеро* никак не может быть дополнением безличного предложения, поскольку стоит в именительном падеже.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> Next strophe should be devoted to девяток негритят, shouldn't it?


This is a quite lousy example which should never been taught for its terrible and deficient language (like *один из них утоп*), nor for its overall politically incorrect wording. 

If you wish, it could be *девятка*, not only *девяток*, but then you will have to say *восьмёрка, семёрка, шестёрка, пятёрка, четвёрка, тройка, пара* (*двойка*)... But *десять, девять, восемь, семь, etc* do not fit the rhyme at all, although it still sings in such a terrible way.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> I wonder how could you know it was Collective if written in figures? No way.
> That's why it's never written in figures.


From what you said in the first place, one cannot deduct such a conclusion. It only means that it if a Collective is written in figures, that there is no clear indication about that. However, it is sometimes possible to draw the conclusion from the context or rhyme.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> *5 человек*, на мой взгляд, вполне является предикатом и правильно согласуется с глаголом *погибло*, поскольку представляет собою нераздельное множество. Именно в этом отличие такого варианта от *5 человек погибли.*
> Такие предложение не следует путать с действительно безличными, напр.:
> *Семерых матросов унесло в открытое море.*
> *Матросы* тут - дополнение в косвенном падеже, в то время как *5 человек* в предыдущем примере - подлежащее в именительном падеже.
> Обратите внимание также на переходность глагола.


That's how I said. If *5 = пятеро* (Collective)* погибло*, then it is either personal *пятеро погибло, *or impersonal, *(их) пятеро погибло*.
If *5 = пять* (Cardinal) * погибло*, then it must be impersonal, although the verb is intransitive. Because of *(их) пять погибло*. 

Please, compare to *их в живых осталось только семеро молодых ребят* (song "Деревня Крюково"), or *их осталось только пять человек*, both are examples of impersonal sentences.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> *Пятеро* никак не может быть дополнением безличного предложения, поскольку стоит в именительном падеже.


Again, it can be a contraction of *их пятеро* as how it is understood if impersonal.


----------



## Crescent

Maroseika said:


> I don't think so and have never came across anything like that - I mean real newspaper articles, and not internet ones.
> Besides, how can you know what's meant if it's written in figures: пятеро or пять?
> 10 негритят пошли купаться в море.



I cannot agree or disagree with what Maroseika's saying, as it has been a very long time since I've read a Russian newspaper o), but I would just like to ask: why does it matter if the number written in figures is for example, пять о пятеро?
Пятеро машин сгорели = 5 машин сгорели.
To be honest, I don't really see what difference it makes to the context, if the idea of the sentence is carried across: the fact that it was_ five_ cars which burned (no more and no less)? 

Just an opinion..


----------



## Etcetera

Crescent said:


> why does it matter if the number written in figures is for example, пять о пятеро?
> Пятеро машин сгорели = 5 машин сгорели.Just an opinion..


With all due respect, you can't say пятеро машин. It would sound pretty strange!
I can't explain it, but it's so.


----------



## Maroseika

> But *десять, девять, восемь, семь, etc* do not fit the rhyme at all, although it still sings in such a terrible way


Sorry, but I still don't understand what do you mean talking about rhyme: all the Numerals are inside the lines, not in the ends and has nothing to do with the rhyme. Maybe you mean meter?


----------



## Etcetera

Etcetera said:


> With all due respect, you can't say пятеро машин. It would sound pretty strange!
> I can't explain it, but it's so.


Кажется, я поняла, как это объяснить.
"Человек" - одушевленное существительное, "машина" - неодушевленное. Поэтому сказать "пятеро человек" можно, а "пятеро машин" - нет.


----------



## Maroseika

Crescent said:


> Пятеро машин сгорели


You can't say so, because we may use such Numerals only in thefollowing cases:
1. Masculine nouns designating human beings and sometimes pets, animals - when we mean they are "like" human beings
2. With some things existing or used as a pair: shoes, gloves, etc. 
3. With the nouns existing only in Plural: часы, очки, брюки (usually inly in Nominative and Genitive).
That's why пятеро машин sounds pretty strange to Etcetera.


----------



## Thomas1

I've been wondering, can I use here the word особа?
_пять особ погибли_
Does that sound natural/normal in Russian?



Etcetera said:


> With all due respect, you can't say пятеро машин. It would sound pretty strange!
> I can't explain it, but it's so.


Maybe because you mainly use this kind of numerals with "human" (or should I say all animate?) masculine nouns. And, if you use them with inanimate nouns these are, in turn, mianly pluralia tantum. Or can you think of any example of a "normal" (inanimate) noun used with collective numerals?


Tom


----------



## Crescent

Etcetera said:


> Кажется, я поняла, как это объяснить.
> "Человек" - одушевленное существительное, "машина" - неодушевленное. Поэтому сказать "пятеро человек" можно, а "пятеро машин" - нет.


Thank you very much, Etcetera and Maroseika, for teaching me the grammar of Russian!  
No, no - I'm not offended at all, just a little dissapointed.. Again, this is one of those senarios where..I don't know - it sounds just fine to me. But I trust your views and opinions more than my own, of course, and so I have no choice but to agree.   
How odd that you wouldn't say ''пятеро машин''! Would you simply say ''пять машин'' then?


----------



## Crescent

Thomas1 said:


> I've been wondering, can I use here the word особа?
> _пять особ погибли_
> Does that sound natural/normal in Russian?
> 
> 
> Maybe because you mainly use this kind of numerals with "human" (or should I say all animate?) masculine nouns. And, if you use them with inanimate nouns these are, in turn, mianly pluralia tantum. Or can you thin of any example of a "normal" (inanimate) noun used with collective numerals?
> 
> 
> Tom


 
Hi, Tom! 
_*Oсоб* -_ here sounds slightly...strange. I'm not sure what the others think of this, but it's just that this word is often used in the context of describing somebody as being odd, weird, strange.. e.g. Ona - strannaya osoba. 
Using the same word to describe people in general gives the phrase a slightly ambiguous and... odd meaning - it seems always as if the author says this is a spiteful, accusing tone.
I'm not sure if that explanation explains anything or confuses you still the more.


----------



## Etcetera

Crescent said:


> Would you simply say ''пять машин'' then?


Yes.

For Tom: the word особа is archaic, it isn't widely used in modern Russian. When it is used, the use is rather sarcastic. 
But you can come across this word in Russian translations of Victorian novels. For example, the word особа is often used in the Russian version of Charlotte Bronte's _Jane Eyre_. Of course, no sarcasm here - the word is more than appropriate in a novel about Victorian Britain.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> Sorry, but I still don't understand what do you mean talking about rhyme: all the Numerals are inside the lines, not in the ends and has nothing to do with the rhyme. Maybe you mean meter?


Sorry, you're right, of course, it's meter, стихотворный размер. If you want to use the Cardinals throughout this song, then the meter will be broken in every line.


----------



## Kolan

Etcetera said:


> Кажется, я поняла, как это объяснить.
> "Человек" - одушевленное существительное, "машина" - неодушевленное. Поэтому сказать "пятеро человек" можно, а "пятеро машин" - нет.


You're right, one can see the difference between *пятеро человек* and *пять трупов*. Compare to *пятеро погибших (человек, животных).
*


----------



## Kolan

Crescent said:


> _*Oсоб* -_ here sounds slightly...strange. I'm not sure what the others think of this, but it's just that this word is often used in the context of describing somebody as being odd, weird, strange.. e.g. Ona - strannaya osoba.
> Using the same word to describe people in general gives the phrase a slightly ambiguous and... odd meaning - it seems always as if the author says this is a spiteful, accusing tone.


Still, in modern Russian *особа* has normal application when talking about kings etc, not archaic, paying a certain respect to them, *царствующая особа*, *величественная особа* (may be sarcastic at some point), *знаменитая особа* (being replaced by more current *знаменитость*), *особа княжеского (графского, и т.д.) рода*. Пожалуй, всё.


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> Sorry, you're right, of course, it's meter, стихотворный размер. If you want to use the Cardinals throughout this song, then the meter will be broken in every line.


It's broken anyway, no matter which Numerals one applicates - Cardinal or Collective.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> It's broken anyway, no matter which Numerals one applicates - Cardinal or Collective.


With the Collective, you have well  sustained meter until *четвёрка*, it breaks only at the end, 3 ,2 and 1. This example  does not really deserve such a deep analysis, but I am ready to discuss it further with you and other members.


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> With the Collective, you have well sustained meter until *четвёрка*, it breaks only at the end, 3 ,2 and 1. This example does not really deserve such a deep analysis, but I am ready to discuss it further with you and other members.


When talking about Collective Numerals I meant *четверо, семеро*, etc. 
*Четверка* is not Collective Numeral, it's just a colloquial form of Cardinal Numeral.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> When talking about Collective Numerals I meant *четверо, семеро*, etc.
> *Четверка* is not Collective Numeral, it's just a colloquial form of Cardinal Numeral.


Are you sure? It looks more like a colloquial form of Collective Numeral, please, compare:

*Четверо *гребцов - *четвёрка *гребцов - *четыре *гребца.

It also replaces a conventional Collective when such a Numeral is hard or impossible to form, for example

*двадцатка* instead of *двадцатеро,
*тридцатка *instead of *тридцатеро,
*сороковка* instead of *-----------,

One more argument, compare the roots,

*тро*е - *тро*йка - *три*
*четвер*о - *четвёр*ка - *четыр*е
*пятер*о - *пятёр*ка - *пят*ь
...
*семер*о - *семёр*ка - *сем*ь

наращение корня -ер (-ёр) выглядит, на мой взгляд, достаточно убедительным аргументом в пользу единства корней и, следовательно,  родственности этих двух форм числительных.


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> Are you sure? .


Ozhegov is.

Here you may see why *Пятеро человек осталось* *ночевать*. is a personal sentence (Collective Numeral substantivizes): http://rusgram.narod.ru/2231-2256.html#2245


----------



## Etcetera

But Пятеро осталось ночевать sounds more naturally. It's pretty clear from the context that we're speaking about five people.


----------



## Memphis9489

If it's not possible to say "пять людей погибли", would it be acceptable to say "несколько людей погибли" or "много людей погибли"? You would never say "много человек погибли", would you? 

Also, on an unrelated note: Would it be acceptable (or even more correct) to use *погибло *in all these sentences?


----------



## Maroseika

Memphis9489 said:


> If it's not possible to say "пять людей погибли", would it be acceptable to say "несколько людей погибли" or "много людей погибли"? You would never say "много человек погибли", would you?


Пять (несколько) человек погибли is quite correct, but not людей, unless it is used in the sense of "servants".
Even много can work with Plural Gen. in some cases.

Just look par. 183 and 184.



> Also, on an unrelated note: Would it be acceptable (or even more correct) to use погибло in all these sentences?


Yes.


----------

