Thread: Animate neuter nouns?

Are there any neuter nouns that are animate in Russian? I know that животное is animate, but what about others?

животное
насекомое
земноводное
млекопитающее
пресмыкающееся
существо ("живой организм")
лицо (одушевлённое только в значении "человек")
дитя/дети
чудище
чудовище
страшилище
детище

Originally Posted by RedFox

животное
насекомое
земноводное
млекопитающее
пресмыкающееся
существо ("живой организм")
лицо (одушевлённое только в значении "человек")
дитя/дети
чудище
чудовище
страшилище
детище
человечище

Apart from the above-mentioned nouns, which are singular countables, there are also examples of collective neuter nouns relating to people, such as: начальство, человечество, студенчество, etc - though, there aren't so many of them, I think.

Originally Posted by nsdfrv

Apart from the above-mentioned nouns, which are singular countables, there are also examples of collective neuter nouns relating to people, such as: начальство, человечество, студенчество, etc - though, there aren't so many of them, I think.

They cannot be considered as grammatically animate.

to RedFox: Not being a good theoretician, I was precautious in my comment to explicitly distinguish between ‘singular countables’ and ‘collective nouns (relating to people)’, which, as I can rely on your knowledge, “cannot be considered as grammatically animate”.
But, on the other hand, I'm curious about what the rule says: “A collective noun is a noun that refers to a group of people (!) or things” – in other words, “…refers to a group of animate (!) or inanimate objects”. So, the examples given by me DO refer to groups of animate objects (?). I 100% trust your expert opinion, but, my logic would NOT agree to the fact that collective nouns like ‘население, крестьянство, правительство, etc’ could refer to groups of inanimate objects …

"Grammatically Animate" = "having the Accusative Case the same as the Genitive" (opposed to "having the Accusative Case the same as the Nominative", which is inanimate).
This definition has nothing to do with the lexical meaning of a noun. For instance, мертвец is animate, so we should say "Я вижу мертвеца", not "Я вижу мертвец".

Animacy is applicable to all the plural nouns ("вижу книги" vs "вижу кукол", "вижу столы" vs "вижу детей", "вижу окна" vs "вижу существ") and for masculine singular nouns having zero ending in the Nominative ("вижу стол" vs "вижу мертвеца").

Indeclinable nouns still can be animate or inanimate, which is reflected in the Grammatical Case of an adjective:
Animate: "Я вижу больших пони"
Inanimate: "Я вижу большие кашпо"

Feminine and neuter nouns having no plural are neither animate nor inanimate (пыль, посуда, зверьё and so on).

What about начальство, человечество, студенчество, they do have plural, though their usage in plural is rather rare.
So we can check their animacy. My intuition of a native speaker tells me (and a dictionary confirms) I should say:
"Я вижу начальства", not "Я вижу начальств";
"Я вижу человечества", not "Я вижу человечеств";
"Я вижу студенчества", not "Я вижу студенчеств".

Hence, they are inanimate.

Originally Posted by RedFox

человечище

человечище is masculine dispite the inflexion.
E.g.: “Какая глыба, какой матёрый человечище!”

Originally Posted by Soft sign

человечище is masculine dispite the inflexion.
E.g.: “Какая глыба, какой матёрый человечище!”

О, блин, точно. Пропустил поверку, выписывая из обратного словаря.
Сейчас уберу.

thank you SO MUCH for your explanation! really helpful!