# Adjectives: -ий, -ый or -ой?



## Rumple.stiltskin

Hello,

I'm studying from a book called " дорога в россию "
and I'm a bit confused about adjectives.
- Aren't there a specific rule when to add ый or ой ?


There's some kind of rule in a table to add ий for words that ends with г - к - х as in маленький, yet I found expensive written as " дорогой " though it ends with г , any explainations, please ?

And if anyone can help with an easy explanation for adgective adds generally I would be grateful . Thanks !


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hi R.s; there is a good overview of Russian adjectives, their types, and their declensions here (source: section 2.8, pp 44-51, 'Russian' by Edna Andrews © SEELRC 2001).

As you can see, it takes them seven printed pages just to scratch the surface; it's not possible to explain it all in a post on the forum. If you have a specific question about the form of a given adjective in a specific context and with a full sentence, it will be much easier for us to help you.


----------



## rae1

Rumple.stiltskin said:


> there's some kinda rule in a table to add ий for words that ends with г - к - х as in маленький


Is there really such a rule? How peculiar...
Actually, it never occured to me before, but now that I come to think of it, --ой is more likely to be found when the last vowel (о) is stressed. -ый/-ий will probably be without stress. And I don't think there exists some sort of dependency between vowel  and previous consonant.
Смешн*о*й, but зел*ё*ный
Зап*а*сный, but запасн*о*й
М*е*лкий, but морск*о*й
I don't think that can be called a proper rule, though.


----------



## Rumple.stiltskin

Enquiring Mind said:


> Hi R.s; there is a good overview of Russian adjectives, their types, and their declensions here (source: section 2.8, pp 44-51, 'Russian' by Edna Andrews © SEELRC 2001).
> 
> As you can see, it takes them seven printed pages just to scratch the surface; it's not possible to explain it all in a post on the forum. If you have a specific question about the form of a given adjective in a specific context and with a full sentence, it will be much easier for us to help you.



Hi Enquiring Mind , 
Yes I understand that , I was just asking if there's any kind of rule to figure out when to add ый or ой or ий , or do I just have to memorize every single adjective on its own.
Thanks.



rae1 said:


> Is there really such a rule? How peculiar...
> Actually, it never occured to me before, but now that I come to think of it, --ой is more likely to be found when the last vowel (о) is stressed. -ый/-ий will probably be without stress. And I don't think there exists some sort of dependency between vowel  and previous consonant.
> Смешн*о*й, but зел*ё*ный
> Зап*а*сный, but запасн*о*й
> М*е*лкий, but морск*о*й
> I don't think that can be called a proper rule, though.



Well I don't realy know but that's what I thought from that table in the book, maybe you tell me : ) .
A picture for the table is attached.
Thanks.


----------



## rae1

Honestly, it puzzles me. On my part I can only assure you that Russian language does possess adjectives with -ой after г, к or х.

Тугой, нагой
Городской, мирской
Плохой, лихой

All of them have the stress on the last о. Maybe the table was meant to say that after г, к or х only -ий can be used and not -ый. Adjectives that end with -гый, -кый, -хый seem impossible to me. But -гой, -кой, -хой certainly are possible.


----------



## Vadim K

This table shows that after г-к-х you must add ending *-ий*, not *-ый*. So it is just a choice between *-ий* and *-ый*, and not between *-ий/ый* and *-ой*.


----------



## Drink

This is all historical. A few hundred years ago, the Russian language went through a change where the stressed adjectival ending -ы́й became -о́й, but unstressed remained -ый. Another change that happened around the same time, was that -кы-, -гы-, and -хы- everywhere became -ки-, -ги-, and -хи-, which not only affected adjectives, but nouns and verbs too.


----------



## Rumple.stiltskin

rae1 said:


> Honestly, it puzzles me. On my part I can only assure you that Russian language does possess adjectives with -ой after г, к or х.
> 
> Тугой, нагой
> Городской, мирской
> Плохой, лихой
> 
> All of them have the stress on the last о. Maybe the table was meant to say that after г, к or х only -ий can be used and not -ый. Adjectives that end with -гый, -кый, -хый seem impossible to me. But -гой, -кой, -хой certainly are possible.



Well That makes sense , Thanks alot ! : )




Vadim K said:


> This table shows that after г-к-х you must add ending *-ий*, not *-ый*. So it is just a choice between *-ий* and *-ый*, and not between *-ий/ый* and *-ой*.



I think that I don't get your point exactly . : (




Drink said:


> This is all historical. A few hundred years ago, the Russian language went through a change where the stressed adjectival ending -ы́й became -о́й, but unstressed remained -ый. Another change that happened around the same time, was that -кы-, -гы-, and -хы- everywhere became -ки-, -ги-, and -хи-, which not only affected adjectives, but nouns and verbs too.



Oh Thanks for that addition about historical changes , it's new information for me ! : )


----------



## Panceltic

It's all quite easy, and yes, there are rules.

As others have mentioned before:

If the ending is stressed, then the sole possibility is *-ой*.
If the ending is not stressed, there is a choice of *-ий *or *-ый*, where -ий is used after a soft consonant and -ый after a hard consonant.


----------



## Rumple.stiltskin

Panceltic said:


> It's all quite easy, and yes, there are rules.
> 
> As others have mentioned before:
> 
> If the ending is stressed, then the sole possibility is *-ой*.
> If the ending is not stressed, there is a choice of *-ий *or *-ый*, where -ий is used after a soft consonant and -ый after a hard consonant.



Well yes things are bit more clear to me now : )
Thanks.


----------



## Panceltic

Oh, and of course the rule whereby к г х cannot be followed by ы 

You're welcome


----------



## Vadim K

Panceltic said:


> It's all quite easy, and yes, there are rules.
> 
> As others have mentioned before:
> 
> If the ending is stressed, then the sole possibility is *-ой*.
> If the ending is not stressed, there is a choice of *-ий *or *-ый*, where -ий is used after a soft consonant and -ый after a hard consonant.



Are you sure that those rules are quite easy for understanding of non-native speakers? To be honest I have always been surprised how non-native speakers could understand whether the ending is stressed or not reading such kind of rules.


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> This is all historical. A few hundred years ago, the Russian language went through a change where the stressed adjectival ending -ы́й became -о́й, but unstressed remained -ый. Another change that happened around the same time, was that -кы-, -гы-, and -хы- everywhere became -ки-, -ги-, and -хи-, which not only affected adjectives, but nouns and verbs too.


Actually, it's the other way around: Russian, unlike all other Slavic languages, had retained the adjectival ending with reflexes of yers (_-ой/-ей)_, whether stressed or not. Facilitated by vowel reduction, it was replaced by the Church Slavonic ending _-ый/-ий_ when unstressed. Unstressed _-ой/-ей_ can be encountered in 18th-century documents and I think was still a feature of the old Moscow accent well into the 20th century, it must survive in the countryside somewhere. The softening of _гы/кы/хы_ happened much earlier.


----------



## Panceltic

Vadim K said:


> Are you sure that those rules are quite easy for understanding of non-native speakers? To be honest I have always been surprised how non-native speakers could understand whether the ending is stressed or not reading such kind of rules.



Well I never found this rule difficult, being a non-native speaker at that. When learning Russian words, one has to learn the stress along with the pronunciation. To be fair, I think this is one of the easiest "rules" that a learner of Russian has to memorise.


----------



## Vadim K

Panceltic said:


> Well I never found this rule difficult, being a non-native speaker at that. When learning Russian words, one has to learn the stress along with the pronunciation. To be fair, I think this is one of the easiest "rules" that a learner of Russian has to memorise.



Ok. But if anyway non-native speakers should memorize every word along with the stress and the pronunciation do you think they still need any rules to understand what the ending should be?


----------



## Panceltic

Well, since the OP asked for an explanation ...  Anyway, it also works the other way round, doesn't it? You see a new adjective ending in -ой and you know immediately where the stress should be.


----------



## Vadim K

That makes sense. I have not realized it before.


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> Actually, it's the other way around: Russian, unlike all other Slavic languages, had retained the adjectival ending with reflexes of yers (_-ой/-ей)_, whether stressed or not. Facilitated by vowel reduction, it was replaced by the Church Slavonic ending _-ый/-ий_ when unstressed. Unstressed _-ой/-ей_ can be encountered in 18th-century documents and I think was still a feature of the old Moscow accent well into the 20th century, it must survive in the countryside somewhere. The softening of _гы/кы/хы_ happened much earlier.



Interesting, I've never heard this theory, but I like it. But then how would you explain the fact that some rural dialects of Russian as well as Belorussian and Ukrainian, all of which were much less influenced by Church Slavonic, all have both stressed and unstressed -ый (although Belorussian spells it -ы and Ukrainian spells it -ий)?


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> Interesting, I've never heard this theory, but I like it. But then how would you explain the fact that some rural dialects of Russian as well as Belorussian and Ukrainian, all of which were much less influenced by Church Slavonic, all have both stressed and unstressed -ый (although Belorussian spells it -ы and Ukrainian spells it -ий)?


The same reason all other Slavic languages do – it's Russian that's the exception to the ъй/ьй=>ый/ий shift.


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> The same reason all other Slavic languages do – it's Russian that's the exception to the ъй/ьй=>ый/ий shift.



That doesn't make much sense. That would mean that the change happened independently in each branch of East Slavic except for the Moscow dialect, as well as in West and South Slavic.


----------



## Sobakus

Drink said:


> That doesn't make much sense. That would mean that the change happened independently in each branch of East Slavic except for the Moscow dialect, as well as in West and South Slavic.


I really don't see how you've come to that conclusion, rather, the fact that the dialects bordering with Western Slavic exhibit the change, while the North-Easternmost don't, points to a continuous shift from West to East (post-shift influence of neighbouring dialects and standard languages is also possible). I see no reason why it couldn't be independent in South Slavic though. Any way, both the original etymological endings and the switch to the CS modified endings are attested, so it's not like I'm speculating. C.f. Lomonosov's _Российсая грамматика: "Например, по-славенски единственные прилагательные мужеские именительные падежи кончатся на ый и ій — богатый, старшій, синій, а по-великороссийски кончатся на ой и ей — богатой, старшей, синей."_


----------



## Drink

Sobakus said:


> I really don't see how you've come to that conclusion, rather, the fact that the dialects bordering with Western Slavic exhibit the change, while the North-Easternmost don't, points to a continuous shift from West to East (post-shift influence of neighbouring dialects and standard languages is also possible). I see no reason why it couldn't be independent in South Slavic though. Any way, both the original etymological endings and the switch to the CS modified endings are attested, so it's not like I'm speculating. C.f. Lomonosov's _Российсая грамматика: "Например, по-славенски единственные прилагательные мужеские именительные падежи кончатся на ый и ій — богатый, старшій, синій, а по-великороссийски кончатся на ой и ей — богатой, старшей, синей."_



I wasn't accusing you of speculating; I just wanted an explanation. Thanks!


----------



## marco_2

Sobakus said:


> Unstressed _-ой/-ей_ can be encountered in 18th-century documents and I think was still a feature of the old Moscow accent well into the 20th century



That's right, it was a feature of so-called Moscow or scenic norm, therefore in the old actors' speech _Белеет парус одинокий _rhymed with _Что ищет он в стране далекой_ - in both endings it was a reduced _o (шва)._


----------



## Ben Jamin

Drink said:


> ... rural dialects of Russian as well as Belorussian and Ukrainian, all of which were much less influenced by Church Slavonic, ...


What was the reason of a lesser OCS influence on those languages?


----------



## Drink

Ben Jamin said:


> What was the reason of a lesser OCS influence on those languages?



Church Slavonic (not Old Church Slavonic) was the literary language and thus had more influence over the educated elite. Some examples of this influence are Russian _В*ла*димир_ vs. Ukrainain _В*оло*димир_, Russian _знаю*щ*ий_ vs. Ukrainian _знаю*ч*ий_, etc.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Drink said:


> Church Slavonic (not Old Church Slavonic) was the literary language and thus had more influence over the educated elite. Some examples of this influence are Russian _В*ла*димир_ vs. Ukrainain _В*оло*димир_, Russian _знаю*щ*ий_ vs. Ukrainian _знаю*ч*ий_, etc.


Was this language very different from that used in the Great Duchy of Lithuania? They developed from the same source, didn't they?


----------



## Maroseika

_
Moderatorial:
Dear foreros,
Let me remind you the topic: *Adjectives: -ий, -ый or -ой? Is there a rule when use each of them?*
Please stay within this scope._


----------



## Bespelled

You might find this table useful: http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/adjectives/   . It includes the stress (accent) rule that has been explained above.


----------

