Thread: A small question about много

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

In old Russian (maybe, 11th century or alike) nouns had 3 grammar numbers: Singular, Dual and Plural. And yes, that was the way all the Indo-European languages developed. The dual number was lost in most of the languages by merging with plural, however it still exists in a few of them (Scottish Gaelic, Slovenian, Sorbian and Frisian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_(grammatical_number)).

The traces of the dual form are still found in Russian: рукав (a sleeve) has an unusual form of plural: рукава (instead of the expected рукавы, which does not exist). The same is with глаз (eye): глаза (and not глазы). The same is with ухо (ear): уши (and not уха, as it should be expected for the neutral gender). There are some other similar examples.
The explanation is that all those forms (рукава, глаза, уши) which are now considered as plurals, used to be the dual forms (old Russian: рукав (1) - рукава (2), рукавы (>2), the latter was rarely used since sleeves usually come in pairs, the same with eyes, ears...).
But the old Russian had separate dual and plural forms for every countable noun.

That is why, the number "два" (2) was originally used with the dual form: два года (two years), два города (2 towns), два моста (2 bridges).
So, what's wrong with "три", "четыре"? They are not dual, they should require plural. Yes! But the language sometimes changes obeying "the rule of analogy". People started using 3 and 4 the same way as 2. And that usage has become generally accepted.

But then Russian lost its dual number. However, the nominative dual form just occasionally was very similar to the genitive singular. People continued saying "два года, три года, четыре года", but this form was re-interpreted as the genitive singular. Because people forgot it was dual.

And what's with 5, 6 and greater? Those words (пять, шесть, ...) were originally nouns, not numerals. Therefeore, they required Plural Genitive (the same way as you say "a lot OF cars", "hundreds OF cars"). So, we say "пять городов, пять мостов, шесть городов, шесть мостов".

As to "год", I think someone else can explain why "годов" was replaced by "лет". I do not know an explanation for this word.

Due to some reason, people started counting "summers" instead of "years". By its origin, "лет" is genitive plural of "лето" (summer).

Thanks for this explanation. I am at work and I cannot look this in detail. But when I go home I will read it carefully. I will have some questions regarding that. Talk later.

So, your question is gradually developing to debating

Originally Posted by impulse

From my point of view, it affects the language learning because if someone understands the specific reason about why a word is used the way it is he/she can remember it much more easily and can attain a deep knowladge about the grammer rapidly. So that is why i am digging into whys. Hows are also important but it means to memorize not to understand.

The idea you are promoting would be excellent in an ideal world. But the world is not ideal
On the one hand, you are right: everything CAN be explained (at least, in theory).
On the other hand, as I told already, very often native speakers do not know an explanation. You have to know how the language developed in its history in order to understand anything logically. And that gives many times more information for you than just to learn its modern state. You can learn the modern state of a language more or less easily, but you will never be able to understand why it is this particular way and not any other way, unless you study the historical linguistics.

Finally, different languages are different ways of thinking. What seems to be logical for a native speapker, does not seem logical for a foreigner.

You know, my wife is currently learning English. She is at the very beginning level yet. Recently she has learned the usage of "OF", and then she made some grammar exercises.
And she asked me a question very "symmetrical" to what you are asking:
I understand that I need "of" in the phrase like "in the shade of green trees" (в тени зелёных деревьев), since it is genitive in the Russian phrase (деревьев).
But why shouldn't I use the "of" in the phrase like "five tall green trees" (пять высоких зелёных деревьев)? It is the same genitive there! Don't I need "of" in English?

Originally Posted by impulse

It is infact not a grammar nonsense. What I tried to ask was, if i am not some adverbs are formed up from adjectives. For example хороший – хорошо, трудный – трудно. I do not know if all adverbs are like this but thought that Много would also be formed up from an adjective.

What is nonsense - is to ask about the grammar case of an adverb. Adverbs do not have cases.
Now some people say "много" is not really an adverb. But it is a question of terminology. No matter what we call it, it behaves as an adverb.

Now, what you are saying (хороший – хорошо, трудный – трудно) is correct! Many adjective have related adverbs. The same as многий - много. Very similar!

But you can talk about the case of an adjective (хороший, хорошего, хорошему, хорошим, хорошем) and you cannot talk about the case of an adverb. It makes no sense to ask "what case is хорошо". I hope you get my point.

Originally Posted by impulse

I provide the example because it makes the reason why it is used that why so that it is easy to spread that knowladge rapidly to the other areas of the grammer. Language is a logical thing. Each and everything must have a reason and form my point of view is improtant about ones learning curve.

Impulse, I am sorry, but I did not understand your example with "a lot of". Your explanation does not make much sense to me. I just know that I have to say "a lot OF cars" but "many cars" without "of". The same way as I remember I have to say "hundreds OF cars" but "one hundred cars". It does not seem logical to me, but I've got used to it nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

...
I understand that I need "of" in the phrase like "in the shade of green trees" (в тени зелёных деревьев), since it is genitive in the Russian phrase (деревьев).
But why shouldn't I use the "of" in the phrase like "five tall green trees" (пять высоких зелёных деревьев)? It is the same genitive there! Don't I need "of" in English?

...
...have to say "a lot OF cars" but "many cars" without "of". The same way as I remember I have to say "hundreds OF cars" but "one hundred cars". It does not seem logical to me, but I've got used to it nonetheless.

Боб, you're so good at all this that you probably know about the additional formations:

"one hundred of the cars" so when it is a sub-quantity, it is genitive, with 'of'. "Many of the cars were old."

"five tall green trees" => "five of the tall green trees" a sub-quantity. So there is a specificity thing happening.

It depends on what the emphasis is on.

"Take five men and search the field." vs "Take five of the men and search the field."

BTW, Impulse, I did provide an explanation to you (see my posts above with examples):
when you specify "quantity OF things", you normally use genitive plural (because of the "OF THINGS"). "Много" is a quantity. Does it make sense to you?

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

BTW, Impulse, I did provide an explanation to you (see my posts above with examples):
when you specify "quantity OF things", you normally use genitive plural (because of the "OF THINGS"). "Много" is a quantity. Does it make sense to you?

First of all I would like to point out that I am not trying to debate. I just like to learn a rule togather with it’s reason. Because I hate to memorize things . If I can use the why of a rule it sticks to my mind much more rapidly than if I just try to memorize it.
It is ofcourse impossible to dig into the historical facts about the whys of every rule in Russian grammar. But I try to figure out the most I can.
Yes I understand your examples. Thank you.

Он побывал во многих частях/городах этой страны.
Он посетил много городов страны.

Thank you! I can see that what I was asking doesn't have any sense.

This is really a good explanation thanks a lot.
With 1 > nominative singular form of the noun is used.
2-3-4 > genetive singular form of the noun is used.
5-6-7 and so on > genetive plural form of the noun is used.
Is that right or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by impulse

This is really a good explanation thanks a lot.
With 1 > nominative singular form of the noun is used.
2-3-4 > genetive singular form of the noun is used.
5-6-7 and so on > genetive plural form of the noun is used.
Is that right or am I missing something?

Exactly! You got it right!
And then, more precisely:

Nominative Singular is used with 1 as well as with any number which ends in 1 (21, 31, ..., 91, 101, 121, ...) except those which end in 11 (since 11 is "одиннадцать" and it does not end in "один"): один стол, двадцать один стол, тридцать один стол, ..., девяность один стол, сто один стол, сто двадцать один стол...


Genitive Singular: 2, 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, ..., 102, 103, 104, 122, 123, 124... (the exceptions are numbers ending in 12, 13, 14 since they do not end in "два", "три", "четыре"): два стола, три стола, четыре стола, двадцать два стола, тридцать три стола, сто четыре стола...

Genitive Plural: all other numbers
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, ..., 100, 105, 106, ..., 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116...:
пять столов, шесть столов, семь столов, восемь столов, девять столов, десять столов, одиннадцать столов, двенадцать столов, тринадцать столов, четырнадцать столов, пятнадцать столов, шестнадцать столов, семнадцать столов, восемнадцать столов, девятнадцать столов, двадцать столов, ..., сто столов, ..., тысяча столов, ... миллион столов.

The rule of the thumb is: check the very last word of a compound numeral. It governs the noun.

Thanks alot. That is the clearest explanation I got about this topic.
I still am not studied about the genative case so I cannot use this rule effectively but at least it is carved into my mind.
Is it hard to form genative singular/plural nouns? I must have a look at that.

From MR site: Genitive Case of Russian Nouns

A more interesting question: why do we say the city of London, but uncle John (not the uncle of John, for example)?

Originally Posted by Marcus

A more interesting question: why do we say the city of London, but uncle John (not the uncle of John, for example)?

Really! But I am not sure if native speakers understand our logic behind that. The expected answer is probably "uncle of John" is "John's uncle", but "uncle John" is someone else's uncle

Thanks, Seraph! Yes, I knew that, although I did not want to over-complicate my examples
However, this use of "OF" (sounds funny - of "OF") conveys a bit different meaning, and it is rendered in Russian by means of "из".

"Ten cars" is "десять машин" in Russian. While "ten of the cars" is "десять из машин" (but usually with an extra definition: "десять из этих машин", "десять из тех машин", "десять из наших машин" etc.). This is how we express sub-quantity, or extract from a set.

In English: "one hundred cars" but "hundreds of cars". Both do not mean sub-quantity. In Russian: "сто машин" (сотня машин) and "сотни машин".
However, "hundreds of the cars" is "сотни из (тех/этих/новых...) машин".