Руки ломать/ ломай рук

I was reading the following passage from an article, and I was confused about why the word рука changes forms, if it's still the same construction. I understand the ломай is just the imperative of ломать but why would руки change to рук?

Руки ломать is literally "to break one's hands" -- a more vivid version
of the English "to wring one's hands." Both mean "to be terribly upset
about something." In English you might express the meaning rather than
the gesture. Не плачь, Аннушка, не ломай рук. (Don't cry, Annushka,
don't despair.)

Here's the full article -- it's really quite interesting:
http://community.livejournal.com/learn_ ... tml#cutid1

negative trans. verbs often take gen. direct object instead of acc. Use of the acc. has been creeping in for many years now, esp. when the object is tangible. Often nowadays you can go either way. Usually the gen. is the more literary form where you have a choice.

рук-# is the gen. pl. of рук-а.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaika

negative trans. verbs often take gen. direct object instead of acc. Use of the acc. has been creeping in for many years now, esp. when the object is tangible. Often nowadays you can go either way. Usually the gen. is the more literary form where you have a choice.

рук-# is the gen. pl. of рук-а.

---

I guess I understand that -- I'm used to doing it with нет (к примеру "Миши нет здесь и т.д.), but not with just the не.

So if I was Пушкин I would say Не ломай рук, but if I was your contemporary хулиган I may opt for Не ломай руки, right?

"Заламывать руки" в литературном понимании этого выражения означает горевать. Однако, в жизни, чаще всего, "заламывать руки" означает, что тебе их выкручивают чтобы повалить на землю :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaika

negative trans. verbs often take gen. direct object instead of acc. Use of the acc. has been creeping in for many years now, esp. when the object is tangible. Often nowadays you can go either way. Usually the gen. is the more literary form where you have a choice.

рук-# is the gen. pl. of рук-а.

---

I guess I understand that -- I'm used to doing it with нет (к примеру "Миши нет здесь и т.д.), but not with just the не.

So if I was Пушкин I would say Не ломай рук, but if I was your contemporary хулиган I may opt for Не ломай руки, right?

---

Right.


P.S. I'm awaiting your thanks for my super-comprehensive explanation :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaika

negative trans. verbs often take gen. direct object instead of acc. Use of the acc. has been creeping in for many years now, esp. when the object is tangible. Often nowadays you can go either way. Usually the gen. is the more literary form where you have a choice.

рук-# is the gen. pl. of рук-а.

---

I guess I understand that -- I'm used to doing it with нет (к примеру "Миши нет здесь и т.д.), but not with just the не.

So if I was Пушкин I would say Не ломай рук, but if I was your contemporary хулиган I may opt for Не ломай руки, right?

---

We have encountered questions about the use of the genitive in negative consructions a number of times recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TATY

We have encountered questions about the use of the genitive in negative consructions a number of times recently.

---

You caught me. I have been registering dozens of accounts just so I can post the same questions over and over at MR.net! :twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vadim84

P.S. I'm awaiting your thanks for my super-comprehensive explanation :lol:

---

It was only slightly comprehensive, so instead of "Thank you!" you get this:
Tx! :lol:

You deserved "tix", ha, ha, ha...

ha, ha, ha....

Tixy-Lix