# Indeclinable genitive of Russian personal pronouns



## Abandoned

Pages 126-7 of B.O.  Unbegaun's Russian Grammar carry the following : - ' These indeclinable forms have the disadvantage that they cannot be used absolutely ( in the manner of the English possessive pronouns ) , a drawback which is particularly perceptible when it is desired to employ the possessive pronoun of the third person after a comparative ' . The indeclinable forms to which he refers are the genitive forms of the Russian personal pronouns , which he presents prior to that point . Can anyone explain please what Unbegaun means by ' USED ABSOLUTELY ' , as the quoted text is not followed by a single example ? In other words , there must be at least one type of sentence or scenario in which those indeclinable Russian forms are prohibited . What is this type of sentence or scenario please , and can anyone provide examples ?


----------



## Maroseika

I think what's meant is:
Моя машина больше, чем его.
Его меньше, чем моя.

However in fact it still can be used, if the context is clear enough, and even in such a way (at least colloquially):
Чей дом лучше - мой или его?
Его - лучше.

Note: hyphen shows that something mentioned before is missed.


----------



## Abandoned

Thank you . I confess to having been at first puzzled by your reply because your tick authorizes the use of the indeclinable third person form after the Russian word for ' than ' whereas Unbegaun's wording ' ... third person after a comparative ' within my quotation might seem to prohibit that very same thing . Considering also your second paragraph , however , I now think that Unbegaun did NOT intend to prohibit THAT PARTICULAR  two-word sequence but was merely setting out a complete scene , as you have done with your first two sentences . So what happens after the Russian for ' than ' is beside the point . I now think that what he is actually prohibiting is nothing more than a two-word sequence consisting of an indeclinable third person form followed DIRECTLY by a comparative adjective as at the beginning of your second sentence . ( It is only THOSE two words that constitute absolute usage . ) I furthermore presume that the use of indeclinable third person forms immediately BEFORE NOUNS is NEVER prohibited , whatever the position of these words in the sentence may be , and whatever case the noun is required to adopt . Am I right please ?


----------



## Maroseika

Yes, you are right, I have overlooked the words "followed directly". So my example should be corrected to: "Моя машина больше его".
I still think this is quite possible construction, providing the context is clear enough.
As for the pronoun before the noun, it's usually clear in any context, so cannot be prohibited by no mean: Моя машина больше его машины.


----------



## Vovan

*Abandoned,* what are those "indeclinable forms" of some Russian pronouns? I just don't get it...
Could you give one more line from the book?


----------



## Abandoned

Sorry ,  I believe you misunderstood what I meant by ' followed DIRECTLY ' ( though it's my fault for not making myself plainer ) . I was NOT suggesting you omit the Russian word for ' than ' . When I said ' followed DIRECTLY  ' I was merely indicating a scenario in which NO NOUN is WRITTEN , as in the first two words of your second example sentence . I was seeking to distinguish such scenarios in which no noun follows from those scenarios where a noun DOES follow . Anyway , returning to the point of my enquiry , I would just like to be clear as to which precise combinations/ sequences of words Unbegaun means to prohibit ( though you yourself may find them acceptable ) and which he does NOT mean to prohibit . So you think he meant to prohibit the first two words in the second example in your first message , and also to prohibit the LAST two words in the example in your last message ? Looking at your TICKED example , however , can you confirm that he did NOT intend to prohibit the use of the indeclinable form after the word for ' than ' ? Since what I've been saying might appear confusing , perhaps it would be best if you were to write out all three example sentences ( barring those concerning the house ) , or even one or two more examples please ) and underline those individual words that constitute absolute usage and which therefore constitute objectionable sequences ( at least to Unbegaun ) . If there is nothing objectionable at all in a given example , then it may be ticked .


----------



## Abandoned

Dear Vovan , Unfortunately I cannot copy Cyrillic script using my mobile phone but I can copy what Unbegaun says prior to the bit I quoted earlier . He says ' The possessive pronoun of the third person , when it does not refer to the subject of the clause , is rendered by the genitive of the personal pronoun ; these forms are , obviously indeclinable : ' After that colon , he cites three ( two-letter ) Russian words that he translates as ' his ' , ' her ' , and ' their ' , and he gives Russian phrases which he translates as ' of his beard ' , ' in her hands ' , and ' by their care ' . What he calls ' indeclinable forms ' are forms that happen to match the genitive forms within the declension table for the personal pronouns back on page 123 . After the bit I've just quoted comes the bit that I quoted in 
my first message and which begins ' These indeclinable forms have the disadvantage that they cannot be used absolutely ... ' All I've been trying to establish is what exactly counts as ABSOLUTE USAGE  , so that I shall know the circumstances under which the indeclinable forms are not allowed .


----------



## Vovan

*Abandoned, *thanks!
I guess what the author means is that you can't use the indeclinable *его (his, its), её (her) *and *их (their) *to mean *his, hers *and *theirs *(the latter three are called the absolute forms of the possessive pronouns *his, her *and *their*)*:*
_Our dog is more beautiful than theirs.
  Наша собака красивее их. (Our dog is more beautiful than them.)
 Наша собака красивее их собаки.
 Наша собака красивее, чем их (собака).
_​But you can safely use them as the subject or in the predicate with a linking verb, for example:
_Моя (=моя машина) была у жены, а его в гараже.
Mine (=my car) was with my wife, and his was in the garage.
Эта машина - её.
This car is hers._​


----------



## Abandoned

Dear Vovan , it might be more convenient to cite the much more recent book : Learn Russian , by Ian Press . He cites the same indeclinable forms in the fifth-last line of page 80 , and before them he says ' Now let's have the possessives and demonstratives , starting with four that never change : ' After citing these indeclinable forms he says ' They never change because they're already in the genitive , just like English ' his ' , 'her ' , its ' , their ... ' . These indeclinable forms are at least spelt identically to the genitive forms within the table of personal pronouns further up the page . ( Press claims four of them , Unbegaun only three ,  but that's because Press has an additional one that he renders ' its ' .


----------



## Abandoned

Dear Vovan , I didn't wish to annoy you by quoting a second book but I had already started to compose my message when yours came through . Sorry


----------



## Vovan

Oh, it's okay! Thanks to your message, I have added some more information into my previous one, *Abandoned.*


----------



## Abandoned

Dear Vovan , I believe I've got it , thank you very much ! In your first example the indeclinable form would be grammatically acceptable but the sentence would then be interpreted as meaning ' ... than THEM ' , which doesn't match the intended meaning , so the use of the indeclinable form would be wrong . In your second example , the indeclinable form is correctly used because it is followed by a noun and so does not correspond to the absolute English construction that uses ' theirs ' ; if it did then it would be forbidden , but it fortunately does not . Your third example differs in including the word for ' than ' and I presume the use of the indeclinable form in this example is valid whether the following noun is actually uttered or written , or merely understood . You may correct me if any of that is incorrect but hopefully it is all right .


----------



## Vovan

You are right, Abandoned! As for my third example, it's valid because we can have a clause after *чем *(than), just as in English, and "их" becomes the subject of the clause (and thus, it can mean "theirs"):
_Наша собака была красивее, чем (была) их (собака).
_​Well, to sum it up, the issue we're discussing is using the Russian words "его", "eë" and "их", which can be both forms of the personal pronouns "он", "она" and "они", and the respective possessive pronouns (which, in turn, are sometimes used as stand-alone, and sometimes not).
And we should be aware of possible confusion when using them.


----------



## Abandoned

I suppose that if the indeclinable form in your third example is not followed by an uttered or written noun , then the indeclinable form , viewed as a subject , is really the genitive of the personal pronoun rather than the indeclinable form , but the sentence is still perfectly acceptable .


----------



## Vovan

Abandoned said:


> I suppose that if the indeclinable form in your third example is not followed by an uttered or written noun , then the indeclinable form , viewed as a subject , is really the genitive of the personal pronoun rather than the indeclinable form , but the sentence is still perfectly acceptable .


I'm afraid not! Personal pronouns when used as the subject of a clause are always in the form of the Nominative.

What I meant by "can mean _theirs_" is that it's not always the case after "чем" (than):
_Лучше бы ты меня любил, чем их.
You'd better love me than them._​


----------



## Abandoned

Apologies . I meant to say that in your third example , the indeclinable form , when not followed by a spoken or written noun , is really the NOMINATIVE  form of the personal pronoun rather than an indeclinable form .


----------



## Vovan

It's the Nominative (or whatever - the form is indeclinable in respect of the case) of the possessive pronoun "их".
_*Их* дом большой. (Their house is big.) Posses., indecl.
Мой дом больше, чем *их* дом. (My house is bigger than their house (is).) Same here.
Мой дом больше, чем *их*. (My house is bigger than theirs (is).) Same here.
Мой дом больше (кого? чего?) *их*. (My house is bigger than them / bigger than they are.) Personal, genetive

_​*Их* - *1)* their(s), *2)* them, of/to/by... them


----------



## Abandoned

Ok . I'll accept that it's not a form of the personal pronoun but rather the indeclinable form that we've been discussing . Unbegaun calls these by the term ' possessive pronoun ' , so there's no contradiction with you  . If you wanted to translate ' I'd rather go out with our dog than with theirs ' you can use the very same two-letter Russian word that you've just cited , i.e. the very same spelling that you've just cited , without speaking or writing the word for ' dog ' after it ,  because the form is indeclinable , though you could then view it as being in the instrumental case .


----------



## Vovan

Abandoned said:


> If you wanted to translate ' I'd rather go out with our dog than with theirs ' you can use the very same two-letter Russian word that you've just cited , i.e. the very same spelling that you've just cited , without speaking or writing the word for ' dog ' after it , because the form is indeclinable , though you could then view it as being in the instrumental case .


Yes, both ways go with your sentence, the omission of  "собака" being more natural:

_ Я бы лучше (по)гулял с нашей собакой, чем с их.
 Я бы лучше (по)гулял с нашей собакой, чем с их собакой.
_​And as for the case of "их", there's indeed none, strictly speaking. But one could think about it as being the Instrumental if that helps them.

_I'd rather feed my dog than theirs.
 Я бы лучше покормил свою собаку, чем их. _(than them? than theirs? Possible but could be ambiguous.)
_ Я бы лучше покормил свою собаку, чем их собаку._​


----------



## Abandoned

Ok , I think that will cover things . Thank you very much . You've been most helpful


----------



## Sobakus

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the workaround for this problem, granted it's quite colloquial: их vs ихних


----------



## Rosett

Sobakus said:


> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the workaround for this problem, granted it's quite colloquial: их vs ихних


The preference is given to Standard Russian only.


----------



## Sobakus

Rosett said:


> The preference is given to Standard Russian only.


Everyone has their own preferences that ought not to be enforced on anyone. Instead, if we want to paint the whole picture and let the learners make their own choice as to how to use the variety that the Russian language can offer as well as help them understand it, we would be foolish not to mention as many elements of that variety as we can.


----------



## Abandoned

Dear Sobakus , I'm afraid I don't know what you're driving at but I suppose the Russian form that you cite immediately AFTER saying ' VS ' is an alternative genitive of something or other


----------



## Sobakus

Abandoned said:


> Dear Sobakus , I'm afraid I don't know what you're driving at but I suppose the Russian form that you cite immediately AFTER saying ' VS ' is an alternative genitive of something or other


Sorry, I falsely thought the explanations in the thread I linked to be self-sufficient, but I will certainly clarify: colloquial Russian solves the problem of the possessive pronoun being indeclinable as well as identical to the Genitive of the personal pronoun by using adjectivised, declinable possessive pronouns, namely _егоный/еёный (ейный)/ихний_. Those then can be freely used in absolute position as well as in cases where ambiguity with the personal pronoun would otherwise occur, or simply if the possessive pronoun stands far away from the noun it modifies. Of the three, _ихний _is just about stylistically neutral by now while the other two definitely sound very informal.


----------



## Abandoned

Thank you . I think my books don't deal with colloquial Russian at all , and don't deal with those additional forms that you just mentioned . I had not supposed that there existed still FURTHER forms not presented in my books but now I appreciate that there are .


----------

