# её называ́ли настоящей or настоящим врачом?



## wonlon

Which one is correct?
*
1. Ле́на спасла́ жизнь ма́льчику, её называ́ли настоя́щим врачо́м.
2. Ле́на спасла́ жизнь ма́льчику, её называ́ли настоя́щей врачо́м.*

Also, as I know, врач is for both male and female, so there should be no врач*о́й*, right?


----------



## Maroseika

Yes, врачой doesn't exist, only врач and colloquial and a bit rude врачиха. 

In your example adjective agrees with the grammatical gender of the noun:
Ле́на спасла́ жизнь ма́льчику, её называ́ли настоя́щим врачо́м.


----------



## wonlon

He is my  colleague.

1. Он *мой* коллеѓа.
2. Он *моя *коллега.

Then it should be *моя*?


----------



## Maroseika

No, коллега has two genders depending on the subject.
Он - мой коллега.
Она - моя коллега.

There is a lot of such words in Russian: пройдоха, попрошайка, умница, молодчина, сирота and many others. This is called общий род.


----------



## eni8ma

Why is it not genitive, since the object is animate?

(and how did you use a short dash, when others have told me it must always be long, even though I don't have a long dash on my keyboard? )


----------



## wonlon

Oh, I check that *врач *should be masculine, I used to think it is of common gender. 

*врач, а*́ *m.* doctor, physician;
де́тский в. paediatrician (Br.), pediatrician (US);
 зубно́й в. dentist.


----------



## Maroseika

eni8ma said:


> Why is it not genitive, since the object is animate?


I think you mean another construction:
Я увидел своего (свою) коллегу.
However this is not the case when animated and unanimated Gen. differ. They differ only if the noun is masculine "morpholohically", or better say belongs to the 2nd declention, i.e. ends on the consonant:

Я увидел паровоз.
Я увидел врача.

But: 
Я увидел машину.
Я увидел коллегу.



> (and how did you use a short dash, when others have told me it must always be long, even though I don't have a long dash on my keyboard? )


Sure, it must be long, but I also don't have it on my keyboard.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> Oh, I check that *врач *should be masculine, I used to think it is of common gender.



In Russian only nouns ending on -а can be of common gender. This happens because such nouns belong to the 1st declension, which includes as masculine as feminine nouns (папа, мама, тетя, дядя). Of course, vast majority of them are feminine, but the very ability of such nouns to be masculine allows such words to have common gender.


----------



## wonlon

My dictionary has an example under *спасти*:
*во время войны этот врач спас жизнь моему отцу.*
At the time of the war, this doctor saved the life of my father. (my translation from Chinese.)
I also don't know why моему отцу and the above мальчикуis dative, not genitive.


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> This happens because such nouns belong to the 1st declension, which includes as masculine as feminine nouns (папа, мама, тетя, дядя).



Shouldn't feminine nouns (also masculine nouns ending) in -а / -я be of 2nd declension?


----------



## eni8ma

Maroseika said:


> They differ only if the noun is masculine "morphologically", or better say belongs to the 2nd declension, i.e. ends on the consonant:
> 
> Я увидел паровоз.
> Я увидел врача.
> 
> But:
> Я увидел машину.
> Я увидел коллегу.


Yes, I did not take the ending into account.

Anyway, I now see that this is a case of predicate nominative.  Я сейчас понимаю


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> I think you mean another construction:
> Я увидел своего (свою) коллегу.
> However this is not the case when animated and unanimated Gen. differ. They differ only if the noun is masculine "morpholohically", or better say belongs to the 2nd declention, i.e. ends on the consonant:



I think you mean 1st declension, since I don't understand this quote if you say 2nd declension.


----------



## eni8ma

wonlon said:


> My dictionary has an example under *спасти*:
> *во время войны этот врач спас жизнь моему отцу.*
> At the time of the war, this doctor saved the life of my father. (my translation from Chinese.)
> I also don't know why моему отцу and the above мальчикуis dative, not genitive.


I think they prefer for a new thread to be started for new questions 
I am going to risk my neck again, and suggest that in this sentence, the structure is:
во время войны этот врач спас жизнь моему отцу.
During the war, this doctor saved the life of my father

этот врач - subject - nominative
жизнь - direct object - accusative
моему отцу - indirect object - dative


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> I think you mean 1st declension, since I don't understand this quote if you say 2nd declension.



Numeration may differ. I mean the 2nd declension (конь, магазин, зеркало) and 1st declension (папа, мама).


----------



## wonlon

By the way, in 
во время войны этот врач спас жизнь моему отцу.
we would not know, without context, the sex of the doctor since врач here can be female, too. And the the verb and этот agrees with the grammatical gender, not biological gender.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> My dictionary has an example under *спасти*:
> *во время войны этот врач спас жизнь моему отцу.*
> At the time of the war, this doctor saved the life of my father. (my translation from Chinese.)
> I also don't know why моему отцу and the above мальчикуis dative, not genitive.



Actually, it can be genitive as well: Он спас жизнь моего отца.
But the sense will be a bit different, more detached.

However I'm afraid I cannot see how this refers to the thread subject.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> By the way, in
> во время войны этот врач спас жизнь моему отцу.
> we would not know, without context, the sex of the doctor since врач here can be female, too. And the the verb and этот agrees with the grammatical gender, not biological gender.



You are right. But this is not a problem, because the genus is surely known from the context.


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> Numeration may differ. I mean the 2nd declension (конь, магазин, зеркало) and 1st declension (папа, мама).



What is your numeration? I only know
1st decl:
masculine nouns ending in a consonant and ь
neueter nouns in о, е, ё.
2nd decl: feminine or masculine ending -а, -я
3rd decl: feminine -ь

since clarifying this can help me understand your message.


----------



## morzh

wonlon said:


> What is your numeration? I only know
> 1st decl:
> masculine nouns ending in a consonant and ь
> neueter nouns in о, е, ё.
> 2nd decl: feminine or masculine ending -а, -я
> 3rd decl: feminine -ь
> 
> since clarifying this can help me understand your message.




Where the heck do you get your information? 
here goes again:

1-е склонение - all nouns ending by -а/-я
2-e склонение - all the rest of masculine plus neuters.
3-е склонение - all the rest of the feminine (mostly ending by "ь")


----------



## eni8ma

morzh said:


> Where the heck do you get your information?
> here goes again:
> 
> 1-е склонение - all nouns ending by -а/-я
> 2-e склонение - all the rest of masculine plus neuters.
> 3-е склонение - all the rest of the feminine (mostly ending by "ь")


Unfortunately, we get our information from non-native speakers who are explaining your language from our point of view.  I have similar information to Wonlon's:

Declension I    masculine + neuter (except -a, -я, мя, путь)
Declension II    -a, -я feminine + masculine
Declension III    мя, feminine -ь, путь


----------



## Maroseika

Times change. In our with Morzh school time the 1st and 2nd declensions were like we wrote, but now they are like wrote you.
Anyway, the idea I hope is quite clear: animated and unanimated Gen. differ only for the musc. nouns ending on a consonant.


----------



## eni8ma

Maroseika said:


> Times change. In our with Morzh school time the 1st and 2nd declensions were like we wrote, but now they are like wrote you.
> Anyway, the idea I hope is quite clear: animated and unanimated Gen. differ only for the masc. nouns ending on a consonant.


Yes, thank you


----------



## wonlon

My Chinese and English Russian grammar books all show the classification I mentioned. Maybe it is for foreign language learners.

So if коллега is in accusative case, then it is *коллегу*, regardless of genders. And the adjective and the like describing it agrees with the biological gender, e.g. своего if a man, своей if a woman. Right?


----------



## Tazzler

wonlon said:


> My Chinese and English Russian grammar books all shows the classification I mentioned. Maybe it is for foreign language learner.
> 
> So if коллега is in accusative case, then it is *коллегу*, regardless of genders. And the adjective and the like describing it agrees with the biological gender, e.g. своего if a man, своей if a woman. Right?



No, regular accusative for feminines.


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> Times change. In our with Morzh school time the 1st and 2nd declensions were like we wrote, but now they are like wrote you.
> Anyway, the idea I hope is quite clear: animated and unanimated Gen. differ only for the musc. nouns ending on a consonant.



I think you mean animated and unanimated *accusative (not genitive) *case. Since I know from my grammar book that animated masculine accusative is equal to genitive. Animated accusative plural is equal to genitive plural.


----------



## eni8ma

I think there are a few typos happening.

Just to be clear:
Declension I    masculine + neuter (except -a, -я, мя, путь)
Declension II    -a, -я feminine + masculine
Declension III    мя, feminine -ь, путь

Decl I - accusative is Nom ending for inanimate, Gen ending for animate - both for singular and plural.
Decl II - accusative ends in у (sing) ; plural - Nom ending for inanimate, Gen ending for animate


----------



## wonlon

Let's go back to declensions of the words of common gender.

So is it:
своего *коллегу
*if my colleague is a man (object)

свою *коллегу
*if my colleague is a woman (object)*

?
*


----------



## Tazzler

Yes, that is correct.


----------



## wonlon

Thanks, since I am puzzled when you first say:


Tazzler said:


> No, regular accusative for feminines.


----------



## morzh

Maroseika said:


> You are right. But this is not a problem, because the genus is surely known from the context.



So then in essence swapped 1st and 2nd declensions?
Do you know why? The language is not murky enough?
Someone has an awl in the ass, pardon my French. 

Also, the students who learned the older versions and who were caught in  this change - what was required of them to know while taking exams?


----------



## Maroseika

I have no idea why this happenned, but I don't see any problem here. After all, the essense is the very declension, not the numbers which are quite random. Who takes care about the numbers of Spanish conjugations? And of course, hardly any student ever encountered on exams that declensions numbers differ from what he was taught at the lections.


----------



## Ben Jamin

wonlon said:


> My dictionary has an example under *спасти*:
> *во время войны этот врач спас жизнь моему отцу.*
> At the time of the war, this doctor saved the life of my father. (my translation from Chinese.)
> I also don't know why моему отцу and the above мальчикуis dative, not genitive.


For this question search for forum discussion about possessive dative in Slavic languages. 
This construction can also be understood if you substitute "дал" for "спас". There may have happened a shift (contamination) of meaning.


----------

