# All Slavic languages: male vs. female surnames



## venenum

Hi there!

Jana's answer to a question concerning a Chech surname made me wonder: 



> It is a female surname, quite a common one.



In Croatian, we don't distinguish between male and female surnames, meaning that a brother and a sister have exactly the same surname - concerning form and pronunciation. 
Jana's explanation triggered a question: How does this really function? Do other Slavic languages distinguish between male and female forms of surnames - meaning that brother and sister would have different forms of the same surname?

Thanks in advance!

Poison


----------



## Thomas1

venenum said:


> Hi there!
> 
> Jana's answer to a question concerning a Chech surname made me wonder:
> 
> 
> 
> In Croatian, we don't distinguish between male and female surnames, meaning that a brother and a sister have exactly the same surname - concerning form and pronunciation.
> Jana's explanation triggered a question: How does this really function? Do other Slavic languages distinguish between male and female forms of surnames - meaning that brother and sister would have different forms of the same surname?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Poison


Hello,

In Polish it depends on a surname since some change their desinences according to the gender and some don't change at all (if we are talking about the Nominative case of course).


I know that in Russian surnames decline according to gender, though I don't know if this is the case with all of them.

Tom


----------



## papillon

Yes, many Russian surnames take different endings depending on the gender. For a full explanation take a look at this recent thread, particularly post #2 by Anatoli.


----------



## LuvDancin

venenum said:


> In Croatian, we don't distinguish between male and female surnames, meaning that a brother and a sister have exactly the same surname - concerning form and pronunciation.


Same goes for Slovenian. No difference.


----------



## Jana337

venenum said:


> Hi there!
> 
> Jana's answer to a question concerning a Czech surname made me wonder:


Patterns:

The male surname looks like a noun (in the grammar sense of the word) - add "-ová" and sometimes omit a vowel at the end. A vast majority of names.
Novák - Nováková
Nováček - Nováčková
Procházka (= walk) - Procházková
Svoboda (=liberty) - Svobodová
Dvořák - Dvořáková
Němec (=German) - Němcová
Soukup - Soukupová
Navrátil - Navrátilová​The male surname looks like an adjective (xxxý) - change it to a female adjective.
Nový (=new) - Nová
Novotný - Novotná
Černý (=black) - Černá
Veselý (cheerful) - Veselá​Exceptions and foreign names (burrocratic and difficult...) - immutable
Janků - Janků
Jírů - Jírů​Hope this helps. 

Jana


----------



## se16teddy

Thomas1 said:


> I know that in Russian surnames decline according to gender, though I don't know if this is the case with all of them.


 
The same applies to Russian patronymics: Ivan Petrovich Kuznetsov might have a son Sergey Ivanovich Kuznetsov and a daughter Anna Ivanovna Kuznetsova.


----------



## Insider

Hello,

Yes, it's a true fact. The division of surnames for females and for males really exists in Ukrainian. Of course, first of all, it depends on the surname.

Insider


----------



## Maja

venenum said:


> Hi there!In Croatian, *we don't distinguish between male and female surnames*, meaning that a brother and a sister have exactly the same surname - concerning form and pronunciation.


Same in Serbian, obviously 

Although, -ka or -eva can be added to a surname (when female,  even the foreign one), but in a certain context and not as an official form of a  last name.
For instance: 
Jovanovićeva je rekla... (Ms Jovanović  said...)
but also
Del Ponteova je rekla... (Ms Del Ponte said...)


----------



## Etcetera

Russian surnames usually take different endings. There are some exceprions, mailnly surnames of Ukrainian origin which end in _-ko_.


----------



## cyanista

To be more precise, there are several typical endings in Russian which change depending on gender: -ов (ова), -ев (ева), -ин(-ина), -ский(-ская), -ый/-ой(-ая). The first three endings are by far the most common. All the other endings remain the same in either gender: -ец, -ич, -их, -ых, -ер and many more.


----------



## Tassos

I just read in Blic the following:

*Mandićeva* osigurala novo odličje za Srbiju!
*Mandićeva* osigurala srebro...
Ova 20-godišnja Beograđanka dva puta je vodila, ali je iskusna  Meksikanka pretekla i povela sa 4:3, kada je *Mandićeva *zabeležila udarac  u glavu i preokrenula na 6:4.

If I am not mistaken, and considering that the verbs osigurati and zabeležiti are both transitive, in all the three sentences the female athlete Milica Mandić is the subject of the sentence. So why are they using the possessive adjective? Would it be wrong to say
*
Mandić* osigurala novo odličje za Srbiju!
Ova 20-godišnja Beograđanka dva puta je vodila, ali je iskusna  Meksikanka pretekla i povela sa 4:3, kada je *Mandić *zabeležila udarac  u glavu i preokrenula na 6:4.

Does this have something to do with the fact that it is a female surname and thus undeclinable?


----------



## Anicetus

Tassos said:


> Does this have something to do with the fact that it is a female surname and thus undeclinable?



Yes, you got it right. Female surnames are indeclinable unless they end in -a (or more rarely -e). This can lead to some rather awkward-sounding sentences when women are referred to only by their surname (especially when expressing dative), which is why these surnames are often adapted to feminine adjectives or nouns (such as _Mandićka_) in the colloquial language. However, this practice is considered quite informal, maybe even impolite by some people. So, to answer your question, saying "Mandić osigurala novo odličje za Srbiju!" wouldn't be wrong at all, it would actually be more formal than using _Mandićeva_.

Note that _Mandićevi_ can also mean "the Mandićs" ("the Mandić family"), although just _Mandići_ is probably more common in this meaning.

On a side note, in many Slavic countries women do have surnames that are grammatically feminine in form (such as _Mandićeva_). Only in BCMS countries and Slovenia (I'm not sure about Macedonia) do men and women have same surnames, which are typically modelled for men.


----------



## Duya

Anicetus said:


> However, this practice is considered quite informal, maybe even impolite by some people. So, to answer your question, saying "Mandić osigurala novo odličje za Srbiju!" wouldn't be wrong at all, it would actually be more formal than using _Mandićeva_.



On the contrary, "possessivization" of bare female surnames is prescribed (but admittedly, not always followed) in Serbian standard:
http://www.rastko.rs/filologija/odbor/odluka030.html

Suffix -ka, however, is considered informal and borderline derrogatory.


----------



## Tassos

I think you are right, it is followed _in general_ but with exceptions.
A quick check of various articles in Blic makes me think that in titles like,
_Mandić: Nisam srljala, bila sam taktički spremna za Espinosu _
when the name is not a part of the sentence, it is not followed. Of course here even a beginner in the language  can easily deduce that we are talking about a woman...  
Then again there is
_Pretposlednji dan Olimpijskih igara: Novaković vesla za medalju, kreću Mandić i Filipović.
_Here if you don't know the athletes you can't guess the gender of Mandić and Filipović.

Now, I recently read various articles in Vijesti about their female handball team where this rule was used much less frequently, but on the other hand they continuously referred to the athletes using both their names...


----------



## LilianaB

se16teddy said:


> The same applies to Russian patronymics: Ivan Petrovich Kuznetsov might have a son Sergey Ivanovich Kuznetsov and a daughter Anna Ivanovna Kuznetsova.



It is slightly different in Russian than in Czech. Only feminine forms of masculine last name forms ending in -ov look like that in Russian, so the feminine form of Ivanov will be Ivanova, but if the masculine form does not end in -ov, it will not be -ova. For example, the wife of Putin will not be Putinova, but Putina.    

In Polish, it depends if the last name is of Polish origin or not. Only etymologically Polish names differentiate between masculine and feminine forms. In the past there was also a form for young girls, which is really a thing of the past that I only heard about. In Polish the form of Nowak will be the same for both, a man and woman, in contrast with the Czech language.  

In fact I think only names ending in -ski, cki, have a feminine from -ska, cka, in Polish.


----------



## iobyo

Anicetus said:


> Only in BCMS countries and Slovenia (I'm not sure about Macedonia) do men and women have same surnames, which are typically modelled for men.



There is a gender distinction in Macedonian:

_–е(в)ски_ (masc.) corresponds to _–е(в)ска_ (fem.)
_–о(в)ски_ (masc.) to _–о(в)ска_ (fem.)
_–ев_ (masc.) to _–ева_ (fem.)
_–ов_ (masc.) to _–ова_ (fem.)

_–иќ_, used by Macedonian Serbs, does not have a feminine form.

The less common surnames ending in _–ин_ doesn't seem to have a distinct feminine form (as in Russian, for example).

The even less common surnames—those that aren't formed like adjectives—also have the one form: _Ѓузел_, _Караџа_, _Терпо_, _Ристо_, _Банар_, _Маленко_, _Манџук_, _Плевнеш_, _Подгорец_, _Силјан_, _Точко_.

This gender distinction has can be quite problematic outside of Slavic-speaking countries. A female relative of mine had her birth documents in her feminine form, but in another country she was registered with the masculine form (as per her father's documents). This meant that whenever she presented them to a government department, they considered them to not refer to the same person.


----------



## Duya

Tassos said:


> I think you are right, it is followed _in general_ but with exceptions.
> A quick check of various articles in Blic makes me think that in titles like,
> [...]
> Then again there is
> _Pretposlednji dan Olimpijskih igara: Novaković vesla za medalju, kreću Mandić i Filipović.
> _Here if you don't know the athletes you can't guess the gender of Mandić and Filipović.
> 
> Now, I recently read various articles in Vijesti about their female handball team where this rule was used much less frequently, but on the other hand they continuously referred to the athletes using both their names...




This is one of the rules where the actual practice varies; note that bare surnames are seldom used in the informal register (where one would normally address a woman by her first name). On one hand, leaving the surname in nominative leaves an awkward situation where the reader does not know person's gender, or where the case congruence is badly broken. On the other, possesivization probably leaves a subconscious impression that the surname is mutilated and/or that the speaker is sexist, although the normativists insist that this is not the case:



> Posebno treba naglasiti da se u savremenom standardnom jeziku dvojstvom oblika tipa _Jovanović-eva : Jovanović-ka_ (tj. opozicijom nastavaka _-ova/-eva_ nasuprot _-ka_) ne markira [prezime ženske osobe] po kriterijumu – *pripadnosti* bilo ocu bilo mužu, jer ta semantička razlika danas nije aktuelna. Takvo razlikovanje nije samo u neskladu sa sociološkim statusom savremene žene[...]


----------



## Tassos

OK, clear so far.
Just two more questions

1) Is it frequent to call a female by her surname (like you do in the army with males) in more or less informal situations (a boss, a colleague, even a friend being playful or ironic). Something like

Hej, Spanić, dođi ovamo! (is that grammatically correct, or it must be something like Hej, Spanićeva, dođi ovamo! or even Hej, Spanićevo, dođi ovamo!)

2) Does someone know why, in a language where literally EVERYTHING is declined, most of female surnames do not?


----------



## Duya

Tassos said:


> 1) Is it frequent to call a female by her surname (like you do in the army with males) in more or less informal situations (a boss, a colleague, even a friend being playful or ironic). Something like
> 
> Hej, Spanić, dođi ovamo! (is that grammatically correct, or it must be something like Hej, Spanićeva, dođi ovamo! or even Hej, Spanićevo, dođi ovamo!)



I wouldn't say it's common, but it's highly idiolectal. If you were close, you would call her by name: _Hej, Ivana, dođi ovamo!_ If you're more distant (e.g. you're her boss), you would probably still call her by name, but address her with _vi_: _Ivana, molim vas dođite ovamo!_ If you're formal still more, you would use _*Gospođo* Spanić, molim vas dođite!_. 

Your example is neither respectful nor really intimate. It should read _Hej, Spanićeva_ in my book, to be grammatical.



Tassos said:


> 2) Does someone know why, in a language where literally EVERYTHING is declined, most of female surnames do not?



First, because they do not have a declension to fit in. They ought to have a feminine declension, but they do not have a feminine form (unless they happen to have, like _Jelača_ or _Beara_) so there's no suitable suffix. Second, they can be regarded as a relatively recent invention: in a traditionalist society, a woman belonged to either the husband or the father, so a possessive from his name or surname was deemed appropriate (and still is, although to a lesser extent). Note that other Slavic languages have still stricter rules about female surnames (although the sense of possession was probably lost).


----------



## Brainiac

When calling (the vocative case) it's _Spasićeva, ...
Spasić_ - In a roll call (not the vocative case), it's just surname or full name and surname. It's used in places such as classrooms (especially if there are a few persons with the same name), courts, military, prisons etc.




			
				 Duya said:
			
		

> Second, they can be regarded as a relatively recent invention: in a traditionalist society, a woman belonged to either the husband or the father, so a possessive from his name or surname was deemed appropriate (and still is, although to a lesser extent). Note that other Slavic languages have still stricter rules about female surnames (although the sense of possession was probably lost).



Ah! Well, true, but I would rather treat this like: it's the same surname for all the members of the family, they are one team , and they are equal. I don't know if this is a relatively recent invention, grammatically, because the majority of Serbian surnames ends in -_ić_, no female (nor male) version, only one version for both sexes. To me, it's not a matter of "possessing" a woman (I think only men can think of this ), the surname meant what (kind of) family you come from, which usually meant - what your patriline was. But, for instance, _Popovići_ meant a line of descent from a male ancestor, a priest, to a descendant (of either sex). Descendants seemed to be equalized, "children/descendant of their forefather"), and marked by their role in the society.


----------



## Duya

Brainiac said:


> I don't know if this is a relatively recent invention, grammatically, because the majority of Serbian surnames ends in -_ić_, no female (nor male) version, only one version for both sexes. [/COLOR][/FONT]



As far as I know, in Serbia proper stable surnames were introduced only by a Prince Miloš's decree from 1820s, which required all citizens (well, peasants, actually ) to acquire a surname ending in -ić, and that it's inherited from father to children; the customs were fairly chaotic before that. That is why in Central Serbia we have relatively uniform suffix -ić today. In other areas (Austria-Hungary), surnames were introduced at different times, and by different principles, but I'd guess that, at least among peasantry, it wasn't earlier than the 19th century.


----------



## Brainiac

So what about heros _Devet Jugovića _from about 1389.? They were not peasants...  We are not sure if that was their surname, but it might have been...they were called like that .....(Jugovići - Vojin, Miljko, Marko, Ljubodrag, Radmilo, Boško, Stojan, Veselin and my favorite Damjan)

(And 200 years is not relatively recently..... But women's independence is.)


----------



## Anicetus

Duya said:


> On the contrary, "possessivization" of bare female surnames is prescribed (but admittedly, not always followed) in Serbian standard:
> http://www.rastko.rs/filologija/odbor/odluka030.html



Very well, I wasn't aware of that. My impression is that isn't used very often in headlines in Croatia. Indeed, Google search for _Pusićeva_ (Vesna Pusić is a Croatian minister) gives only one result from Croatia on the first three pages -- most are from Serbia or even Slovenia. On a less related note, it's funny how one of these results from Serbia refers to her as "_ministar_" and how Croatian insists that a female minister be _ministrica_ while not requiring a special form for bare female surnames.




Tassos said:


> (is that grammatically correct, or it must be something like Hej, Spanićeva, dođi ovamo! or even Hej, Spanićevo, dođi ovamo!)



As Duya and Brainiac told you, it can't be _hej, Spanićevo_. Remember that adjectives don't have a special vocative form. 




Duya said:


> First, because they do not have a declension to fit in. They ought to have a feminine declension, but they do not have a feminine form (unless they happen to have, like _Jelača_ or _Beara_) so there's no suitable suffix.



What I find kind of silly is that even when the surname is an adjective (such surnames are actually rather rare, but they do exist), with the suffix _-ski_ or _-ov_ for example, women get the masculine form.




Brainiac said:


> Ah! Well, true, but I would rather treat this like: it's the same surname for all the members of the family, they are one team , and they are equal. I don't know if this is a relatively recent invention, grammatically, because the majority of Serbian surnames ends in -_ić_, no female (nor male) version, only one version for both sexes. To me, it's not a matter of "possessing" a woman (I think only men can think of this ), the surname meant what (kind of) family you come from, which usually meant - what your patriline was. But, for instance, _Popovići_ meant a line of descent from a male ancestor, a priest, to a descendant (of either sex). Descendants seemed to be equalized, "children/descendant of their forefather"), and marked by their role in the society.



Of course we don't perceive surnames as indicating possession today, but in the old-fashioned patriarchal society, the father -- the "patriarch"-- pretty much was the master, _owner_, of his family. You've probably heard the phrase "Čiji/čija si ti?" from old people addressing children or teenagers.  The way I understand it, _-ić_ is primarily a suffix for deriving masculine diminutive nouns, so _Popović_ originally meant "priest's (little) boy" (even though we obviously don't understand it as such any more). Note that the Russian equivalent of this suffix, _-ič_, is used for deriving men's patronymics (the names that everybody gets according to their father's given name, as demonstrated earlier in this thread by se16teddy), while the suffix for women is _-na_.


----------



## Brainiac

Yes, I've heard for "Čiji/Čijia si ti?". (Matija Bećković - Čiji si ti, mali?). 
But, as you said, that's for kids. And when you are a kid, too young, _dete_, and you "belong" to someone, the sex somehow loses its importance, and a child represents his/her parents (say father). 
- _ić _is deminative,  he is "little father", little Jug Bogdan  (example above) (in my region it's used to draw similarities between child and his grandparents), so a child doesn't belong to a parent, I'd say a child (of either sex) is a copy of a parent. (At least to me.)
Like when you call a kitten _mačkić _(the sex of a kitten seems unimportant). 
And again in my opinion, I imagine -ić first in plural (Popovići), (like pilići, ptičići... ), showing a family, a group, then I guess it has gained singular...hm hm....

(By the way, in so-called patriarchal families, women were "secret bosses" )


----------



## francisgranada

Etymologically, the female surnames are mostly genitives from the proper ("masculine") surnames,  that's why _Kuznetsova_, i.e. _[the wife] of Kuznetsov_.  In case of _Pushkin _(as far as I know) the female version in Russian is _Pushkina _(not *_Pushkinova_). 

As the ending -_ova _is relatively frequent, so in Czech and Slovak it's spontaneously interpreted as -_ová_, i.e. the feminine form of the adjectives in -_ový _(_-ovoj/-ovyj_ in Russian). The result is that in Czech/Slovak we have Kuzněcovová/Kuznecovová, Puškinová, Newtonová, Shakespearová, Sarkozyová, Andrássyová, and even Suzi Quatroová etc ... 

So the ending _-ová_ has become a "general solution", except of the surnames that are _a priori_ adjectives. Thus e.g. the wife/daughter of _Nový _is _Nová _(and not _*Novýová _). 

Of course, this system may also lead to an eventual "deformation" of the proper/original surname. For example, Mrs./Miss  _Pólová _can be the wife/daughter of Mr. _Pól, Póla _or_ Pólo_ ...


----------



## Tassos

Anicetus said:


> Very well, I wasn't aware of that. My impression is that isn't used very often in headlines in Croatia. Indeed, Google search for _Pusićeva_ (Vesna Pusić is a Croatian minister) gives only one result from Croatia on the first three pages -- most are from Serbia or even Slovenia.



I was going to say that. Most of the time I read Jurarnji List (I think it has something to do with the colors, or the copious amounts of foto-reportages featuring attractive females ) and I never noticed such a thing. On the occasion of the Olympics, I switched to Blic and then I spotted it and asked you about it...



Anicetus said:


> As Duya and Brainiac told you, it can't be _hej, Spanićevo_. Remember that adjectives don't have a special vocative form.



Of course I know that, I mean, please....
It was an indirect way of checking if these forms act like nouns or adjectives when referring to female humans.



francisgranada said:


> As the ending -_ova _is relatively frequent, so in Czech and Slovak it's spontaneously interpreted as -_ová_, i.e. the feminine form of the adjectives in -_ový _(_-ovoj/-ovyj_ in Russian). The result is that in Czech/Slovak we have Kuzněcovová/Kuznecovová, Puškinová, Newtonová, Shakespearová, Sarkozyová, Andrássyová, and even Suzi Quatroová etc ...



I was always wandering about the _á _at the end. Does it mean that accent of the word actually shifts to the final syllable or something else? I mean is it Dominika Cib*u*lková as most western sportscasters call her (with the accent on the u) or Dominika Cibulkov*á* (with the accent on the a)?


----------



## kirahvi

Tassos said:


> I was always wandering about the _á _at the end. Does it mean that accent of the word actually shifts to the final syllable or something else? I mean is it Dominika Cib*u*lková as most western sportscasters call her (with the accent on the u) or Dominika Cibulkov*á* (with the accent on the a)?



In Czech and Slovak the stress is always on the first syllable, and the acute accent on top represents a long vowel. So it should be C*i*bulková.


----------



## Miliu

Dear foreros: 

I've just read this piece of news in Blic: 
Klintonova u bolnici, otkriven krvni ugrušak nakon potresa mozga

"Mrs Clinton" becomes "Klintonova" in Serbocroatian? I knew this rule in Russian, for instance, but in Serbian too?

By the way, Happy New Year!


----------



## Tassos

Go to the previous page and start reading from post #11.
Although I have to say this is the first time I see the "possessivisation rule" applied to a _foreign_ female surname (even in Blic they don't usually do it). 
Still if the other various grammatical rules (cases etc) that apply to a domestic surname, apply also to a foreign, I can't see the reason why this shouldn't...


----------



## Miliu

Tassos said:


> Go to the previous page and start reading from post #11.
> Although I have to say this is the first time I see the "possessivisation rule" applied to a _foreign_ female surname (even in Blic they don't usually do it).
> Still if the other various grammatical rules (cases etc) that apply to a domestic surname, apply also to a foreign, I can't see the reason why this shouldn't...



Tassos, I've read all the posts, thanks. In one of them there was the example of "Del Ponteova": so, it seems that rule applies to all surnames... (Moskourieva je bila pjevaćica, Jolie-eva i Anistonova su glumice, Thatchereva je bila ministerica, Merkeleva nije vrlo popularna u Grčkoj...funny!).


----------



## francisgranada

Tassos said:


> ... I was always wandering about the _á _at the end. Does it mean that accent of the word actually shifts to the final syllable or something else? I mean is it Dominika Cib*u*lková as most western sportscasters call her (with the accent on the u) or Dominika Cibulkov*á* (with the accent on the a)?


No, the accent (stress) is alway on the first syllable of the word. The *á* representns a long vowel. In this case, etymologically it is a continuation of a former Slavic *aja, where this *ja was a (today non existing) pronoun in function of a definite article when added to the end of adjectives.


----------



## Tassos

francisgranada said:


> No, the accent (stress) is alway on the first syllable of the word. The *á* representns a long vowel. In this case, etymologically it is a continuation of a former *aja, where this *ja was a (today non existing) pronoun in function of a definite article when added to the end of adjectives.



That means that Western sportscasters pronounce _all_ female Czech and Slovak surnames incorrectly...
Btw Francisgranada what about the Hungarian female surnames in Slovakia, do they follow the Slovak or the Hungarian naming rules? (for example how is the wife/daughter of Ladislav Nagy or Andrej Meszároš called?)


----------



## francisgranada

Tassos said:


> That means that Western sportscasters pronounce _all_ female Czech and Slovak surnames incorrectly...


Practically yes . But let's pardon them as it's impossible to know the correct pronounciation of all the languages on earth ...



> Btw Francisgranada what about the Hungarian female surnames in Slovakia, do they follow the Slovak or the Hungarian naming rules? (for example how is the wife/daughter of Ladislav Nagy or Andrej Meszároš called?)


By tradition, automatically adding -_ová,_ so Nagyová, Meszárošová (Mészárosová), Pálffyová, Szabóová ...also Bauerová, Papadopoulosová etc. But, after turbulent discussions, a new law was approved in the parliament some years ago that admits the omission of -ová in surnames if officially demanded (I don't know the details). So today we can see, also in TV, names like Andrea Belányi, Anna Nagy ... but also Edit Bauer, Sofia Papadopoulos etc.


----------



## vianie

Tassos said:


> That means that Western sportscasters pronounce _all_ female Czech and Slovak surnames incorrectly...





francisgranada said:


> Practically yes . But let's pardon them as it's impossible to know the correct pronounciation of all the languages on earth ...



Although I've never been demuring to that, I wouldn't be so kind to many of them in this respect, but let's take it rather as a matter of opinion.



Tassos said:


> what about the Hungarian female surnames in Slovakia, do they follow the Slovak or the Hungarian naming rules? (for example how is the wife/daughter of Ladislav Nagy or Andrej Meszároš called?)



   Out of the curiosity - there are certainly more ladies without the female suffix in Slovakia than in Czech Republic. Not only because of the ten percent Hungarian minority, but also because some Slovaks have stronger feeling not to modify foreign sounded or looking names, I think.


----------



## Anicetus

francisgranada said:


> Etymologically, the female surnames are mostly genitives from the proper ("masculine") surnames,  that's why _Kuznetsova_, i.e. _[the wife] of Kuznetsov_.  In case of _Pushkin _(as far as I know) the female version in Russian is _Pushkina _(not *_Pushkinova_).



Why do you think so? _Kuznetsov_ and _Pushkin_ are already possessive adjectives, so why couldn't _Kuznetsova_ and _Pushkina_ simply be their feminine forms? They are declined like they are.



Miliu said:


> Tassos, I've read all the posts, thanks. In one of them there was the example of "Del Ponteova": so, it seems that rule applies to all surnames... (Moskourieva je bila pjevaćica, Jolie-eva i Anistonova su glumice, Thatchereva je bila ministerica, Merkeleva nije vrlo popularna u Grčkoj...funny!).



If you don't mind some small corrections, it's _Mouskouri*j*eva_ and _Jolie*j*eva_ -- _j_ is inserted between a letter representing /i/ and _a, e, i_ or _u_; hyphens are only used when inflecting acronyms. Furthermore, _Thatcher*o*va_ and _Merkel*o*va_ -- _-ev_ is normally used for palatal-ending stems; _r_ does sometimes behave as if it were a palatal (_car*e*v_, for example), but not in foreign names or recent borrowing (that all happens because _r_ actually used to be palatal a long time ago). Of course, those names were according to Croatian and Bosnian orthography, Serbian would simply spell them phonetically: _Muskurijeva, Džolijeva, Tačerova_. And also, it's _pjeva*č*ica_ and _ministrica_.


----------



## francisgranada

Anicetus said:


> Why do you think so? _Kuznetsov_ and _Pushkin_ are already possessive adjectives, so why couldn't _Kuznetsova_ and _Pushkina_ simply be their feminine forms? They are declined like they are.


Because they _are,_ not explicitely feminine but possessive as you have said correctly. The so called  feminine form of the surnames in -_ová _historically derives from the possessive: Kováčova žena (the wife of Smith, Smith's wife) and also žena Puškina or Puškinova žena (Pushkin's wife, wife of Pushkin) etc...

 I wanted to point out that in Czech and Slovak the ending -_ov*á* _is now simply added to the surname, even if it is etimologically already in genitive case. That's why Kuznecovová and Puškinová in Slovak. In other words, _-ov*á*_ behaves today as an adjective ending, instead of being a feminine possessive _-ov*a*_. 

 P.S. How do you say e.g. Jekaterina Puškinová or Oľga Kuznecovová in Serbian (the wives of some Pushkin and Kuznetsov)?


----------



## werrr

francisgranada said:


> That's why Kuznecovová and Puškinová in Slovak. In other words, _-ov*á*_ behaves today as an adjective ending, instead of being a feminine possessive _-ov*a*_.


Czech ending _-ov*á*_, albeit of genitival origin like the possessive ending _-ov*a*_, was never possessive. It's pure adjectival ending alike in _kovová_ (metallic, of metal),_ ledová_ (icy, of ice), _hladová_ (hungry)...
The possessive and adjectival endings have also different declension.

Czech surnames are of three models:

1) male: noun × female: adjective formed with _-ová_ (model Novák × Nováková)
2) male: adjective × female: adjective (model Nový × Nová)
3) male: genitive × female: genitive (model Martinů × Martinů)

First two models are inflective and the third one is inflexible. Foreign surnames rarely suits the last two patterns. Only some Slavic adjectival surnames suits the second model. On the other hand, practically any foreign surname suits some masculine declension model and thus model one is pretty universal.


----------



## Tassos

werrr said:


> 2) male: adjective × female: adjective (model Nový × Nová)
> 3) male: genitive × female: genitive (model Martinů × Martinů)



Very interesting indeed... For those of us not familiar with Czech, can you give us some examples of famous people from the Czech Republic whose surnames follow models (2) or (3) (just to get an idea)?

And since you mentioned surnames, is it possible to guess if someone is Czech or Slovak just by his surname (I'm talking about, "bare" words, because I know that diacritics differ between the two languages)? (to the moderators sorry - I know this is somewhat off-topic, hope you will let it pass)


----------



## swintok

venenum said:


> Hi there!
> 
> Jana's answer to a question concerning a Chech surname made me wonder:
> 
> 
> 
> In Croatian, we don't distinguish between male and female surnames, meaning that a brother and a sister have exactly the same surname - concerning form and pronunciation.
> Jana's explanation triggered a question: How does this really function? Do other Slavic languages distinguish between male and female forms of surnames - meaning that brother and sister would have different forms of the same surname?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Poison




Ukrainian rules regarding surnames can be somewhat complicated.

If the surname is a straightforward adjectival form (-ський), then there is usually a feminine form (-ська). This is also supposed to be true for non-Ukrainian Slavic surnames, which are in most cases Ukrainianised if this can be done (e.g., Nový becomes Новий; Nová becomes Нова). This does not always happen in practice, however. I have seen Ukrainian official documents issued to foreigners with Ukrainian or Slavic names in which the surname was simply transliterated back into Ukrainian. For example, І. Біла emigrated from Ukraine to Canada, became a Canadian citizen with the surname Bilyy, returned to Ukraine several years later to work, and was issued a work permit by the Ukrainian government under the surname Билйй!

If the surname derives from a possessive adjectival form (-ів, -ов, -ин, і.т.д.), there may be a feminine form or there may not. Generally speaking, in Central and Eastern Ukraine there will usually be a feminine form, whereas in Western Ukraine it is just as likely that there will not. Hence the wife, daughter, or sister of Панчишин may be Панчишина or may also be Панчишин. The wife, daughter, or sister of Панків may be Панків, Панкова, or even Панківа.

Other surnames do not have a feminine form (e.g., Шевчук, Кравець, Міненко, Лакуста, etc.). These surnames decline as normal Ukrainian nouns when referring to a man, but do not decline when referring to a woman. In some parts of rural Ukraine and in the Ukrainian communities in North America it is still possible to hear feminine forms of some of these surnames (Шевчучка, Кравчиха, Міненкова, Лакустиха), but this is an archaic form that is now only oral and is almost never recorded in documents. 

Foreign surnames are never feminised. Foreign surnames follow regular Ukrainian surname declention rules. That is, foreign surnames of men for the most part decline as Ukrainian nouns, but foreign surnames of women do not, unless they are the feminine forms of Slavic adjectival-type words. Hence, Bill Clinton (Клінтон, -а, -ові (-у), -а, -ом, -і (-у), -е) declines, but Hillary Clinton does not. However, both Putin and Putina decline.

One last completely useless piece of trivia is that because of Belarusan orthography rules, Ukrainian surnames ending in -енко are written there as -энка. When these are rendered back into Ukrainian, they remain in their Belarusan form as -енка and are declined for men as feminine nouns, apparently to the annoyance of the President of Belarus when he goes to Ukraine to visit family.


----------



## vianie

> For those of us not familiar with Czech, can you give us some examples of famous people from the Czech Republic whose surnames follow models (2) or (3) (just to get an idea)?





> 2) male: adjective × female: adjective (model Nový × Nová)



*Czech:*

Smutný × Smutná
Veselý × Veselá
Tachecí × Tachecí
Kočí × Kočí (substantivised adjective or vice versa )
Krejčí × Krejčí (substantivised adjective or vice versa )

*Slovak:*

Rýdzi × Rýdza
Sliacky × Sliacka
Starší × Staršia
Slovinský × Slovinská



> 3) male: genitive × female: genitive (model Martinů × Martinů)



*Czech:*

Paulů × Paulů
Petrů × Petrů
Janů × Janů
Jirků × Jirků

*Slovak:*

Jakubove × Jakubove
Jakubovie × Jakubovie
Šovdoje × Šovdoje *or* Šovdojeová
Krnáče × Krnáče *or* Krnáčeová
Jurových × Jurových *or* Jurovýchová
Jankech × Jankechová *or* Jankech
Balažovjech × Balažovjechová *or* Balažovjech
Minaroviech × Minaroviechová *or* Minaroviech

Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../sjpzeny.rtf+&cd=2&hl=sk&ct=clnk&client=opera

 Older .sk link in English: http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/view/28570/2/


----------



## lordwings

The surnames in Bulgarian since the end of the 19 century till now, are  mostly with ov (male) and ova (female) suffixes. Both of these surnames  represent kind of possesion, as well as the other surname forms in  bulgarian ski/ska and nin/in (male) na (female) which also represent the  same thing in different form. 
The kind of possession varies  depending on the surname ending and origins so while ov/ova are used to  describe father's job, grandfather's name or epithet, ski/ska would be  used for the place the family comes from (Varna - Varnenski/ Varnenska  Sofia - Sofiyski/Sofiyska (though in the second case the name would more  likely be Sofiyanski/Sofiyanska which presents not exactly the place  but citizenship). These suffixes are also used to create new sobriquets  so someone coming from Spain , or Bulgarian who have lived in Spain for a  while would likely be called Ispanski (Spanish, someone who comes,  belongs to spain) the same word is used in regards to Spanish language.  Ending in in/nin - na are seldom used now and is old fashioned, this  kind of suffix also means strong possessiveness, because this type of  names is used until 20 century instead of woman's name after her  marriage (when if her husband's name is Ivan, then she has to be called  Ivanina, then "bulka" (wife) is often used in addition.) This version of  name suffix is also used in word forming but  is informal or even  considered rural (Yanin/Yanina, Ivanin/Ivanina, Tomin/Tomina). However  the "na"(female)  suffix along with "en" (for male gender of the word)  which are similar to in/na are used in forming adjectives or - with  respect to words which are dependent to each other like "vyatarna  melnitsa" (windmill) "dyrvena kashta" (wooden house). Phrases ending on  in/ina, nin/nina and expressing this kind of possession like "mayčina  pregradka" (mother's hug) and "baštin dom" (father's home) are more  likely used like idioms so these like "kakina dreha" (grand sister's  clothe) "Petina obuvka" (Petya's shoe) are also considered rural and  replaced by "dreha na kaka", "obuvka na petya" though they are still  used in the dialect forms.


----------



## Tassos

Vianie, thanks very much!


vianie said:


> *Czech:*
> 
> Smutný × Smutná
> Veselý × Veselá



Can we say that Novotný, Novotná and Šťastný all belong into this category?



vianie said:


> Paulů × Paulů
> Petrů × Petrů



Never heard surnames of this type, how are they pronounced?


----------



## francisgranada

Tassos said:


> ... Can we say that Novotný, Novotná and Šťastný all belong into this category?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very simplified explanation, for understanding the historical/etymological "logic":
> 
> 1. Let's suppose a person who is _smith _(by profession), e.g. in Russian "kuzněc" [кузнец]. His son will then be "kuzněcov syn" [кузнецoв сын] and his daugther "kuzněcova doč" [кузнецoвa дочь], i.e. (the) _smith's son _and (the) _smith's daughter_, respectively. The suffixes -_ov _and -_ova _are possessive endigs (masculine and feminine, respectively). This is the origin of many (perhaps most of the) Slavic surnames in _-ov_ and their female counterparts in _-ova_.
> 
> 2. In cases, when the surname is (formally) already in geninitive case, the Russian female version doesn't take the ending _ -ova _(because it would be a grammatical "non-sence"), but rather takes the corresponding feminine genitive ending. This is the case of Russian surnames in _-in_. That's why _Pushkina _and not *_Pushkinova _in Russian. In other Slavic languages (e.g. in Czech and Sovak) this is no more valid, and the ending -_ová _has become an almost "general solution", so we have today _Puškinová _in Czech and Slovak.
> 
> 3. In cases, when the surname is (formally) an adjective, the female version of the surname is the same adjective in feminine gender and no possessive ending is added.  E.g. the Czech or Slovak female surnames _Novotná_, _Šťastná_, _Nová _or _Žilinská_ are simply the feminine forms of  the adjectives _Novotný_, _Šťastný_, _Nový _or _Žilinský. _
> 
> 4. In some cases, e.g. _Petrů,_ the proper surname has become indeclinable because of the non-typical ending. Thus, adding -_ová _to _Petrů (*Petrůová) _would sound unnatural. Although, etymologically _Petrů_ (< *_Petrův_) corresponds to _Petrov_, so the female form could be in theory *_Petrovová/*Petruvová  _(once _*Petrova, _according to point 1.)_. _
Click to expand...


----------



## ilocas2

francisgranada said:


> 4. In some cases, e.g. _Petrů,_ the proper surname has become indeclinable because of the non-typical ending. Thus, adding -_ová _to _Petrů (*Petrůová) _would sound unnatural. Although, etymologically _Petrů_ (< *_Petrův_) corresponds to _Petrov_, so the female form could be in theory *_Petrovová/*Petruvová  _(once _*Petrova, _according to point 1.)_. _



I know person with surname Petrůvová.


----------



## vianie

Duya said:


> Suffix -ka, however, is considered informal and borderline derrogatory.



  Similarly as in Czechia and Slovakia, though I don't perceive it too derogatorily. It's used just when a name ends in the -ová: Banášová - Banáška, Hegerová - Hegerka etc.



Tassos said:


> Never heard surnames of this type, how are they pronounced?



 Just like Paulú and Petrú, with the first syllable accent. Czechs' lips have got a shape of that little circle when pronouncing ů. 



francisgranada said:


> 1. Let's suppose a person who is _smith _(by profession), e.g. in Russian "kuzněc" [кузнец]. His son will then be "kuzněcov syn" [кузнецoв сын] and his daugther "kuzněcova doč" [кузнецoвa дочь], i.e. (the) _smith's son _and (the) _smith's daughter_, respectively. The suffixes -_ov _and -_ova _are possessive endigs (masculine and feminine, respectively). This is the origin of many (perhaps most of the) Slavic surnames in _-ov_ and their female counterparts in _-ova_.
> 
> 2. In cases, when the surname is (formally) already in geninitive case, the Russian female version doesn't take the ending _ -ova _(because it would be a grammatical "non-sence"), but rather takes the corresponding feminine genitive ending. This is the case of Russian surnames in _-in_. That's why _Pushkina _and not *_Pushkinova _in Russian. In other Slavic languages (e.g. in Czech and Sovak) this is no more valid, and the ending -_ová _has become an almost "general solution", so we have today _Puškinová _in Czech and Slovak



     I demonstrate that for sure once again in the two simple diagrams:

 1. (on) Peter - Petrov (syn) / Petrova (dcéra)

 2. (ona) Petra - Petrin (syn) / Petrina (dcéra)



ilocas2 said:


> I know person with surname Petrůvová.



   And is the name of her husband or father Petrův? This is anyway an interesting case.


----------



## francisgranada

I know a person with the surname Adamuv (in Slovakia) and his wife's surname is Adamuvová. However, this surname seems to be of Polish or Czech origin (from Adamów or Adamův).


----------



## ilocas2

vianie said:


> And is the name of her husband or father Petrův?



I don't know what was her husband's name.


----------

