# за кем участие



## pimlicodude

From Solzhenitsyn:


> Оправдали Бейлиса – крестьяне, из тех самых украинских крестьян, за кем участие в еврейских погромах рубежа веков и кому скоро предстояло узнать и коллективизацию, и мор 1932-33 годов, – мор, не отображённый журналистами всего мира и не поставленный в вину тому режиму.


What does за кем mean here? Is there something missing in this sentence?


----------



## Rosett

pimlicodude said:


> From Solzhenitsyn:
> 
> What does за кем mean here? Is there something missing in this sentence?


Nothing is missing here._ Кем_ is a relative pronoun referring to _крестьяне, _за которыми «участие в еврейских погромах рубежа веков» = которые (они же) участвовали в еврейских погромах рубежа веков.


----------



## nizzebro

= за которыми стоит/стояло участие; the author doesn't look for easy ways.


----------



## pimlicodude

Rosett said:


> Nothing is missing here._ Кем_ is a pronoun referring to _крестьяне, _за которыми «участие в еврейских погромах рубежа веков» = которые (они же) участвовали в еврейских погромах рубежа веков.


What does за которыми mean here? Does it mean that participation in pogroms lies behind them (it is in their past)? There is no verb here.


----------



## nizzebro

I expanded my post a little bit; it is supposed to be "за X  стоит Y". It is itself a little ambiguous construct - while it might be used as "what X has done is Y" but also could mean "Y covers X".


----------



## pimlicodude

nizzebro said:


> I expanded my post a little bit;


Ah yes, I see now. Thank you.


----------



## Rosett

pimlicodude said:


> What does за которыми mean here? Does it mean that participation in pogroms lies behind them (it is in their past)? There is no verb here.


A predicate is assumed here, but this is the way we speak. It could be _числится_, _известно_, for example. You can make a logical bridge between the parts of the sentence without a predicate.


----------



## pimlicodude

Rosett said:


> A verb or an adverb is assumed here, this is the way we speak. It could be _числится_, _известно_, for example. You can make a logical bridge between the parts of the sentence.


And the other thing is saying за кем instead of за которыми. Is this more literary?


----------



## nizzebro

It is just clumsy and nothing else - to my personal opinion.
"Крестьяне ... : те, за кем" would be better where they are in the nominative. Anyways, to tell what is better definitely, everything needs to be rephrased there.


----------



## Rosett

pimlicodude said:


> And the other thing is saying за кем instead of за которыми. Is this more literary?


Both _кем_ (кто) and _которыми_ (которые) are equally admissible here. It’s quite similar to a choice between _that_ and _which_ in English.


----------



## Maroseika

pimlicodude said:


> And the other thing is saying за кем instead of за которыми. Is this more literary?


За которыми would sound more natural. But the author consistently avoids the most natural language, which results in the specific and recognizable style.


----------



## Rosett

Maroseika said:


> За которыми would sound more natural. But the author consistently avoids the most natural language, which results in the specific and recognizable style.


_За которыми_ sounds more or less natural but rather heavy for his style, which tends to avoid non-essential complications.


----------



## nizzebro

Rosett said:


> which tends to avoid non-essential complications.


Are you serious?


----------



## Rosett

nizzebro said:


> Are you serious?


Он пишет так, как думает, оставляя читателю возможность перебрасывать мостки. На его текстах вполне можно проводить интеллектуальный отбор.


----------



## pimlicodude

Rosett said:


> _За которыми_ sounds more or less natural but rather heavy for his style, which tends to avoid non-essential complications.


I think, Rosett, you may be expressing your support for a famous, culturally-significant writer and patriot, without actually looking at the details of his language. We have had too many threads on Solzhenitsyn here to claim there are no non-essential complications.


----------



## nizzebro

pimlicodude said:


> Is this more literary?


On the contrary, it is simplistic. За коими, provided by Rosett in the dictionary item, is more literary and even would be clearer than которыми in this case.
The issue here is actually not кем taken alone, it is rather a complex one.
First of all, it is punctuation. There should be a dash after за кем, for the reader to realize that this is predication and not a beginning of "за кем bla-bla-bla [verb]". Instead, he puts a dash in the main clause, where it is unnecessary and only adds to confusion.
Secondly, кто, in any of its forms, is basically singular, and, even though it allows referencing plural actors, it breaks  connectivity when used as a conjunction for a subordinate phrase. That's why there are "которые", "те, кто" and "кои".
And finally, "за кем/которыми/коими - " without the verb is still not that definite, because this prepositional pattern has other uses, and this particular one is quite unstable.

If any of these points were solved, the sentence would sound more or less acceptable, despite the entire informational structure not so good, and that final vague reference "тому режиму". But taken together, these are only a one more clear sign of "masterpiece".


----------



## Rosett

nizzebro said:


> "за кем/которыми/коими - " without the verb is still not that definite, because this prepositional pattern has other uses, and this particular one is quite unstable.


С пунктуацией у Солженицына всё в порядке. А вот скажите, пожалуйста, фраза «_За нами_ Москва, отступать некуда!» вызывает у вас вопрос об отсутствии предиката?
Или, например, «Apr 12, 2018 — Сирия: _за кем_ поле боя? Несмотря на объявленный "сasus belli" президент Трамп не начал ракетный обстрел”?
«Те, _за кем_ несколько поколений, наращивавших власть и капитал, те, чьи интересы (настоящие и будущие) в большинстве случаев связаны с…»


----------



## Rosett

pimlicodude said:


> I think, Rosett, you may be expressing your support for a famous, culturally-significant writer and patriot, without actually looking at the details of his language. We have had too many threads on Solzhenitsyn here to claim there are no non-essential complications.


Solzhenitsyn was writing for Russians using the language that reflects his life experience in Russia over several decades, which include pre-war, war and postwar Soviet society. Solzhenitsyn was elected member of the Union of Writers of the Soviet Union as professional writer long before the Nobel Prize award. The number of threads in this forum about his literary work can witness his mastery and the actual degree of challenge studying advanced Russian.


----------



## Rosett

nizzebro said:


> The issue here is actually not кем taken alone, it is rather a complex one.


А кто сказал, что будет легко?


----------

