# чреваты ростом напряженности



## antobbo

HI guys, I'm having problems not only translating the title of an article, but it's also confusing me as I don't recognize the cases/number of some of the nouns/adjectives
The full title is this: Москва и Пекин считают, что действия КНДР чреваты ростом напряженности в регионе
Now, what's чреваты ростом напряженности?
-чреваты seems to have lost an Й - shouldn't it be чреватый, adjective? And what is it referring to?! The dictionary says that it means "fraught with" + instrumental.
-ростом should be OK, isn't it instrumental of рост?
-But what is напряженности? I vaguely remember years ago my russian teacher saying something about words that end with ности but alas I don't remember what it was. This one seems to be coming from напряже́ние after a look at the dictionary, so while the sense of the whole sentence is clear I'm not sure I could translate it properly considering I'm not quite sure how to translate this чреваты ростом напряженности:
Moscow and Beijing think that the actions of North Corea are increasing the tension in the region.
thanks


----------



## Rosett

Чреваты refers to действия, it's a short adjective (no й.)
Напряжённость means "tensions."


----------



## Vadim K

1. Чреватый = грозящий = fraught
2. Yes, "_ростом_" is instrumental of "_рост_"
3. "_Напряженность"_ is "_tension"_. And yes, "Рост напряженности" is "increase in tension". Don't you understand what means "tension" in political sense? If so, you are the lucky one. 

Moscow and Beijing believe that the North Korea activity is fraught with the increase in tension in the region.


----------



## antobbo

Cool thanks guys.


> it's a short adjective (no й.)


Cool, how do I distinguish a short adjective from a plural? Presumably from the context only?


----------



## Sobakus

antobbo said:


> Cool thanks guys.
> 
> Cool, how do I distinguish a short adjective from a plural? Presumably from the context only?


I'm pretty sure Russian has no form that would be the same for an adjective and a noun because adjectives are always distinguished by their adjectival suffixes. _Чреваты_ is the plural short form of _чреватый._


----------



## rusita preciosa

Sobakus said:


> I'm pretty sure Russian has no form that would be the same for an adjective and a noun because adjectives are always distinguished by their adjectival suffixes.


чреват (fraught)
грубоват (slightly rude)

хорват (a Croatian)
дубликат (a duplicate)


----------



## Sobakus

rusita preciosa said:


> чреват (fraught)  -  хорват (Croatian)


There is no noun _чреват_ (root _чрев-_, adjectival suffix -_ат-_), nor is there an adjective _хорват _(there is _хорватский _with the suffix -_ск-_)_._ Examples of word forms shared by different words can be found here.


----------



## rusita preciosa

Of course, my point was that for a language learner it could be difficult to tell whether the word is a noun or an adjective just by looking at the structure of the word, they just have to memorize them.


----------



## Sobakus

rusita preciosa said:


> Of course, my point was that for a language learner it could be difficult to tell whether the word is a noun or an adjective just by looking at the structure of the word, they just have to memorize them.


Of course, but this much is true for half of the English language, for example (and in Russian there's plenty homoforms as well). It doesn't make sense talking about confusing parts of speech when you don't understand the meaning of either. As soon as you learn what a noun means, it's pretty much impossible to confuse it with an adjective regardless of context.


----------



## Drink

гол (goal) - гол (naked)
ве́лик (bike) - вели́к (great/large)
сыр (cheese) - сыр (moist/raw, although I'm not sure this is used much in the short form)

Like anything else, you just need to distinguish them from context.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hi antobbo, apologies for getting back on topic here .  The adjective чреватый is pretty much archaic these days, and tends to be restricted to a few established expressions. As you noted, it takes the instrumental case, so in your example you have "(действия) чреваты ростом напряженности", and similar established expressions include чреват конфликтами, чреват катастрофой, чреват опасностью, and so forth. I have to say it sounds to me like a bit of a journalistic cliché, but I defer to the opinion of the native speakers on that point.

It is frequently found in the short form, so чреват (masculine), чреватa (feminine), чреватo (neuter), чреваты (plural). One of the functions of short form adjectives is to describe a temporary quality, and the short form adjective can also add emotional colour to the utterance. There may also be other reasons for preferring the short form adjective. Obviously, if something is "fraught with" something, that tends to imply a temporary state of affairs.

Interestingly, while "fraught" will work for contexts like_ fraught with danger/conflict/catastrophe_ and so on, _fraught with growing tension _doesn't work here, and something like "has the potential to increase tension" or "highlights growing tension" probably works better.


----------



## antobbo

thanks guys, yes I think it will just a matter of practice, things will make sense eventually.


> _fraught with growing tension _doesn't work here


Agreed, but the sense of the translation is pretty clear


----------



## Vadim K

Enquiring Mind said:


> The adjective чреватый is pretty much archaic these days, and tends to be restricted to a few established expressions



The adjective "_чреватый_" which means "_pregnant_" is pretty much archaiс, it is true. But the passive participles "_чреват(ый), чревата(я), чревато(е), чреваты(е)_" which mean the potential for something unpleasant (synonym - "_грозящий_") are quite popular and not tend to be restricted to a few established expression in Russian. The only restriction which I can see for the moment is that it is always followed by something unpleasant in the dative case.

For example,

1. "Something" *чреват/а/о/ы *"something unpleasant"
Этот путь/Эта дорога/Это поведение/Эти понты
тебе будет/будут
чреват/чревата/чревато/чреваты
потерей здоровья/жизни/премии/друзей, проблемами/неприятностями/переживаниями.
тем, что (ты) потеряешь здоровье/жизнь/премию/друзей, приобретешь проблемы/неприятности, будешь переживать.

2. "Something", *чреватый/ая/ое/ые* "something unpleasant", is...
Путь/Дорога/Поведение/Понты
чреватый/ая/ое/ые
потерей здоровья/жизни/премии/друзей, проблемами/неприятностями/переживаниями,
тем, что (ты) потеряешь здоровье/жизнь/премию/друзей, приобретешь проблемы/неприятности, будешь переживать,
- не самый лучший способ действий / - этого не стоит/стоят.


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> But the passive participles "_чреват(ый), чревата(я), чревато(е), чреваты(е)_" which mean the potential for something unpleasant (synonym - "_грозящий_") are quite popular and not tend to be restricted to a few established expression in Russian.


Although its synonyms may be active participles, the word itself is certainly an adjective: there's no verb *чрев(а/и/е)ть nor does the participial suffix -т- produce passive participles from a-stem verbs.


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> Although its synonyms may be participles, the word itself is certainly an adjective: there's no verb *чревать nor is there a participial suffix -ат-.



Why have you decided that it is an adjective? Could you please give me an example "adjective + noun" with this word? "Чреватый (кто, что)?" And is it even possible to have one-word synonym from other part of speech?

As for the fact that there is neither the verb "чревать" nor the suffix -aт for the time being, I think the word "чреватый" is not a modern word and formed with the rules which existed before the establishing the modern grammatic system of Russian language. Unfortunately, I am not an expert and so I can not prove it using my knowledge. But at the same time for the moment I am pretty sure that the word "чреватый" in the meaning "грозящий" is not an adjective, but an passive participle.


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> Why do you decide that it is an adjective? Could you please give me an example "adjective + noun" with this word? "Чреватый (кто, что)?"
> 
> As for the fact that there is neither the verb "чревать" nor the suffix -aт for the time being, I think the word "чреватый" is not a modern word and formed with the rules which existed before the establishing the modern grammatic system of Russian language. Unfortunately, I am not an expert and so I can not prove it using my knowledge. But at the same time for the moment I am 100% sure that the word "чреватый" in the meaning "грозящий" is not an adjective, but an passive participle.


Well, first of all, participle is a verbal form. If there's no verb, there can't be a participle from it.

Secondly, both participles and adjectives normally modify nouns: вкусный (adj.) съеденный (p.p.) суп. If a particular word cannot modify a noun, you can't decide whether its an adjective or a participle from it.

This adjective is mostly used with predicative constructions, and it's certainly not unique in this in Russian (c.f. должен with different meaning when attributive). Still, чреватый последствиями поступок.

The whole adjectival suffix -ат- likely comes from a-stem participles with the suffix -т-, but if true, this shift happened in Proto-Slavic since there's not a single -ат- participle in Russian (and I believe in other Slavic languages).


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> If a particular word *cannot modify* a noun, you can't decide whether its an adjective or a participle from it.



Well, let's look at the definiton of an adjective. For example, Adjective - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_An *adjective* is a describing word, the main syntactic role of which is to *qualify* a noun or noun phrase.._. So if a particular word *cannot modify* a noun, it means that it is *not* an adjective. You are right that I can not decide whether it is participle or not from it. But I do decide that it is not an adjective based on the definition of an adjective.


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> Well, let's look at the definiton of an adjective. For example, Adjective - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> An *adjective* is a describing word, the main syntactic role of which is to *qualify* a noun or noun phrase. So if a particular word *cannot modify* a noun, it means that it is *not* an adjective. You are right that I can not decide whether it is participle or not from it. But I do decide that it is not an adjective based on the definition of an adjective.


An attributive adjective modifies a noun (чреватый поступок, волосатый обезьян), a predicative adjective modifies a phrase (его поступок был чреват, этот обезьян был очень волосат). The adjective чреватый can do either, but normally requires an indirect object (чреватый последствиями поступок) – this I believe is the reason for your confusion. Many adjectives can take indirect objects: красный от смеха, полный счастья – this doesn't make them participles (although it hints at their participial origins).

Even if an adjective cannot be used attributively (such as должен), it still remains an adjective. Russian facilitates this by having a distinct short form that's preferred in the predicative function. English also has predicative-only adjectives, such as _aware, awake, alone._


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> Even if an adjective cannot be used attributively (such as должен), it still remains an adjective.



I do not think that it is possible to say "чреватый поступок". So, again, this word can not modify a noun. And it means that it is not an adjective. Or at least it is the adjective which failed to comply with the main function of an adjective.

As for "должен", please look at this definition. As you can see not everybody agrees with you that it is an adjective.

ДО́ЛЖЕН -жна́, -жно́; *нареч*., в функц. сказ. С инф. Обязан (делать что-л., обладать каким-л. качеством). Шахматист д. закончить партию. Хозяйка должна приготовить завтрак. Ты д. быть добрее. // О том, что совершится обязательно, непременно или может совершиться. Д. скоро вернуться. * Всё на земле должно измениться мало-помалу (Чехов). // Вынужден, принуждён. Чтобы выздороветь, я должен принимать лекарства...(Большой толковый словарь русского языка. - 1-е изд-е: СПб.: Норинт. С. А. Кузнецов. 1998)


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> I do not think that it is possible to say "чреватый поступок".


I already explained this in my post.


> As for "должен", please look at this definition. As you can see not everybody agrees with you that it is an adjective.
> 
> ДО́ЛЖЕН -жна́, -жно́; *нареч*., в функц. сказ. С инф. Обязан (делать что-л., обладать каким-л. качеством). Шахматист д. закончить партию. Хозяйка должна приготовить завтрак. Ты д. быть добрее. // О том, что совершится обязательно, непременно или может совершиться. Д. скоро вернуться. * Всё на земле должно измениться мало-помалу (Чехов). // Вынужден, принуждён. Чтобы выздороветь, я должен принимать лекарства...(Большой толковый словарь русского языка. - 1-е изд-е: СПб.: Норинт. С. А. Кузнецов. 1998)


This, I believe, is what Wikipedia means when it says:


> Adverbs are traditionally regarded as one of the parts of speech. However, modern linguists note that it has come to be used as a kind of "catch-all" category, used to classify words with various different types of syntactic behavior, not necessarily having much in common except that they do not fit into any of the other available categories (noun, adjective, preposition, etc.)


But должен doesn't even fit the Russian definition of наречие because it declines for both gender and number.


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> I already explained this in my post.



Sorry, I do not understand what you mean when you have written "already explained". All adjectives that you mentioned *can modify* a noun *without* indirect object - "_волосатые руки_", "_красный шар_", "_полный пэ_". And the word "_чреватый_" *can not* modify a noun *without *indirect object. The same happens with the word "_должен_" which somebody believes that it is not an adjective but rather an adverb. Even if somebody else belives that there is no such part of speech as an adverb at all.

Based on that I can say that at least it is highly debatable whether it is an adjective or not. And for me it is not an adjective just because it fails to comply with the main function of an adjective, i.e. it can not modify a noun by itself.


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> Sorry, I do not understand what you mean when you have written "already explained". All adjectives that you mentioned *can modify* a noun *without* indirect object - "_волосатые руки_", "_красный шар_", "_полный пэ_". And the word "_чреватый_" *can not* modify a noun *without *indirect object. The same happens with the word "_должен_" which somebody believes that it is not an adjective but rather an adverb. Even if somebody else belives that there is no such part of speech as an adverb at all.
> 
> Based on that I can say that at least it is highly debatable whether it is an adjective or not. And for me it is not an adjective just because it fails to comply with the main function of an adjective, i.e. it can not modify a noun by itself.


From what you're saying it follows that an adjective stops being an adjective and starts being an unknown part of speech (neither an adverb nor a participle) when it:
a)is predicative instead of attributive,
b)has a compliment (not an indirect object, my bad).

Either that or two different parts of speech, one adjective and one unknown, fulfil the same grammatical role. I, on the other hand, don't think it's necessary to revise the whole grammar to explain a couple of adjectives that have certain usage restrictions.


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> Either that or two different parts of speech, one adjective and one unknown, fulfil the same grammatical role. I, on the other hand, don't think it's necessary to revise the whole grammar to explain a couple of adjectives that have certain usage restrictions.



The part of speech that has characterictics of two other parts of speech (an adjective and an verb) is not an unknown part of speech. This part of speech is just called an participle. And the word "чреватый" sure has characterictis of both of them. As for the revision of rules it is also possible to say that it is not necessary to revise the whole grammar to explain one participle that has certain usage restriction.


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> The part of speech that has characterictics of two other parts of speech (an adjective and an verb) is not an unknown part of speech. This part of speech is just called an participle. And the word "чреватый" sure has characterictis of both of them. As for revision of the rules it is also possible to say that it is not necessary to revise the whole grammr to explain one participle that has certain usage restriction.


But what exactly are those verbal characteristics of this word that make it a participle? Does it have tense or aspect? Does it have active and passive forms? Can it be reflexive? Does it even have a verb that it comes from? I'm pretty sure the answer to all of those is no. The two characteristics you've mentioned so far – the ability to take a compliment (which is fulfilled in 95% cases for this particular word) and the ability to be used predicatively – are both features most, if not all adjectives possess. In any case, a verbal form of a non-existent verb is an obvious non-sequitur.


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> But what exactly are those verbal characteristics of this word that make it a participle? Does it have tense or aspect? Does it have active and passive forms? Can it be reflexive? Does it even have a verb that it comes from? I'm pretty sure the answer to all of those is no. The two characteristics you've mentioned so far – the ability to take a compliment (which is fulfilled in 95% cases for this particular word) and the ability to be used predicatively – are both features most, if not all adjectives possess. In any case, a verbal form of a non-existent verb is an obvious non-sequitur.



Ok, I do not have enough linguistic knowledge to prove that it is not an adjective with pure linguistic point of view. I have already pointed above reasons why I believe that it is not an adjective.
I also believe that it is an participle because this word can be substitute in the sentences either by the participle (действия, чреватые последствиями / действия, угрожающие последствиями) or by the verb (действия КНДР чреваты ростом напряженности в регионе / действия КНДР угрожают ростом напряженности в регионе). We can even substitute this word by the adverb (Это может быть чревато / Это может быть опасно). But for the moment I can not imagine any sentence where this word can be substitue by any other adjective. And for me it is quite strange to declare as "an adjective" the word that can be substitute in sentences by the verb, by the participle or by the adverb but not by any other adjective.


----------

