Thread: Одушевлённые имена

Some plants are animate. I think there's a kind of mushroom. Hmmmm I wonder why that might be....

Оля »Я люблю своих насекомых / свое насекомое.

а ты хотела сказать что во мн. ч. одушевленное а в ед.ч. нет?

Лично, моё любимое насекомое - таракан!

Originally Posted by chaika

Оля »Я люблю своих насекомых / свое насекомое.

а ты хотела сказать что во мн. ч. одушевленное а в ед.ч. нет?

Хм... Это действительно странно, я об этом не задумывалась, когда писала. Но я бы сказала именно так (если уж вообще пришлось бы говорить такую фразу). "Я люблю своего насекомого" звучит ужасно, по-моему. А фраза "я люблю свои насекомые" просто исключена. Так что... я настаиваю на своих первых вариантах.

Originally Posted by chaika

Some plants are animate. I think there's a kind of mushroom. Hmmmm I wonder why that might be....

Frankly speaking, I could not think of any example with animate plants in Russian. Neither of the mushrooms.

BTW, just a minor bilogical note: actually, mushrooms are not plants, they are mushrooms. There’re 4 independent biological groups of cellular beings: Animals, Plants, Mushrooms and Bacteriums. And there are also 2 groups of non-cellular beings: Micoplasmas and Viruses.

Originally Posted by chaika

Оля »Я люблю своих насекомых / свое насекомое.

а ты хотела сказать что во мн. ч. одушевленное а в ед.ч. нет?

Лично, моё любимое насекомое - таракан!

Olya is 100% right with her example.

I just want to clarify the point. Certainly, some nouns are grammatically animate, others are grammatically inanimate. If a noun is, say, animate, it is always animate regardless if we have a singular or a plural form. However, the only case which is sensitive to the grammatical “animateness” in Russian is the Accusative. And the rules of its formation also depend on the grammatical gender and declension type. Let’s consider examples for each basic declension type, and you’ll get it

Singular.

Type 1a. Masculine nouns ending in a consonant (including –й, -ь):
Inanimate (стол, сарай, пень) – ACC=NOM: Я вижу стол, сарай, пень.
Animate (слон, ковбой, лось) – ACC=GEN: Я вижу слона, ковбоя, лося.

Type 2. Feminine and masculine nouns ending in –а, -я:
They have there own accusative form in –у, -ю, irrespectively if they are animate or not, compare:
Inanimate – only feminine (ложка, баня): Я вижу ложку, баню.
Animate feminine (сестра, косуля “roe”): Я вижу сестру, косулю.
Animate masculine – less common (папа, дядя): Я вижу папу, дядю.
Thus, there is no difference between animate and inanimate nouns for this declension type in singular.

Type 3. Feminine nouns ending in –ь:
They do not have there own accusative form, but there is no difference between animate and inanimate nouns:
Inanimate (тень, печь) – ACC=NOM: Я вижу тень, печь.
Animate (рысь “lynx”, дочь) – ACC=NOM: Я вижу рысь, дочь.

Type 1b. Neutral nouns (ending in –о, -ё, -е, rarely in –я):
Their endings are usually similar to those of Type 1а nouns. However, there are VERY FEW neutral nouns which are animate. Generally, all the neutral nouns are inanimate, but there are some exeptions. It explains why there is no difference in neutral accusative between animate and inanimate nouns, compare:
Inanimate (окно, копьё, поле, семя) – ACC=NOM: Я вижу окно, копьё, поле, семя.
Animate – rare (существо, животное, дитя (irregular noun)) – ACC=NOM: Я вижу существо, животное, дитя.

So, you see, in singular only Type 1a nouns have different accusative endings for animate and inanimate nouns. Type 1b (is what you asked about насекомое), as well as Types 2 and 3 do not show any difference between animate and inanimate in singular.

Plural.

The situation in plural is much simpler than in singular.

For ALL the inanimate nouns (any declension type), ACC=NOM, compare:

Столы, сараи, пни, ложки, бани, тени, печи, окна, копья, поля, семена:

Я вижу столы, сараи, пни, ложки, бани, тени, печи, окна, копья, поля, семена.

For ALL the animate nouns (including the rare 1b animate type!!!), ACC=GEN, compare:

Слоны, ковбои, лоси, сёстры, косули, папы, дяди, рыси, дочери, существа, животные, дети:

Я вижу слонов, ковбоев, лосей, сестёр, косуль, пап, дядей, рысей, дочерей, существ, животных, детей.

So, in plural accusative, animate and inanimate nouns are always different, even if they were not different in singular accusative.

Sorry for some minor off-topic, but it's interesting to notice that the Japanese grammar uses both animate/inanimate and human/non-human distinctions. The former affects the choice of a verb of existence, while the latter determines an interrogative pronoun in questions.

Just a few examples:

Heya ni wa TSUKUE ga arimasu. (Inanimate & Non-human) There is a TABLE in the room.
Question: Heya ni wa NANI ga arimasu ka? What is there in the room?

Heya ni wa TOMODACHI ga imasu. (Animate & Human) There is a FRIEND in the room.

Q: Heya ni wa DARE ga imasu ka? Who is there in the room?

Heya ni wa NEKO ga imasu. (Animate & Non-human) There is a CAT in the room.

Q: Heya ni wa NANI ga imasu ka?

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Frankly speaking, I could not think of any example with animate plants in Russian. Neither of the mushrooms.

"Опёнок" apparently can be declined either as a animate noun or inanimate one. I don't know which variant is correct.

[quote=Полуношник]

Originally Posted by "Боб Уайтман":3gni2wam

Frankly speaking, I could not think of any example with animate plants in Russian. Neither of the mushrooms.

"Опёнок" apparently can be declined either as a animate noun or inanimate one. I don't know which variant is correct.[/quote:3gni2wam]

Yep, I'm really confused. An interesting example. Я увидел опёнка. Я увидел опят. Sounds like animate. I am not sure for the singular, but in the plural Я увидел опята (inanimate form) is really weird for me...

Nevertheless, I think it can be explained. The nouns with suffix -ёнок (-онок after hushes) and their plural forms in -ята (-ата after hushes) normally denote animals' youngs (львёнок - львята, поросёнок - поросята, слонёнок - слонята, лягушонок - лягушата, медвежонок - медвежата etc.), and also children as ребёнок - ребята. And all those nouns are animate.

Опёнок (with its plural опята) is, probably, the only word which does not denote a young animal. In fact, it's a mushroom. But psychologically it is perceived as a young animal's name due to its specific suffix. I think it's the explanation.

BTW, thank you for your example. Very interesting one!

See! I told ya - mushrooms!!!
http://ushakov.myfind.ru/article/204/10.html

см. #724.

Но пришлось немало времени копаться в инете, пока не успел найти такие слова!

И конечно следует вопрос -- а эти грибы галлюциногенные?

Originally Posted by chaika

See! I told ya - mushrooms!!!
http://ushakov.myfind.ru/article/204/10.html

см. #724.

Но пришлось немало времени копаться в инете, пока не успел найти такие слова!

И конечно следует вопрос -- а эти грибы галлюциногенные?

Действительно! Не только опёнок, но и маслёнок! Может, и ещё сходные названия есть... Припомнить не могу...

Насколько мне известно, галлюциногенных среди них нету

Originally Posted by chaika

И конечно следует вопрос -- а эти грибы галлюциногенные?

Вроде бы, опята - съедобные грибы, а ложные опята (другой вид, но внешне похожие) - ядовитые.