User talk:Benwing2/ru-numeral-examples

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, KoreanQuoter, Useigor, Wanjuscha, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk): I wrote a script to generate entries for numbers 21-99. Some of these numbers currently have entries but not most of them, and the usage notes aren't consistent or complete. This page has examples of four numbers that should collectively cover the various possibilities. Could you review them carefully and let me know if there are any mistakes? Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Numbers above four, including compound numbers, govern the genitive plural. So it’s not восемь русского мальчика, but восемь русских мальчиков.

And numerals 2-4 do govern the genitive singular but if there are qualifiers, they are in genitive plural. So два мальчика, but два русских мальчика.

Guldrelokk (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Of course the second note only applies to the nominative/accusative, in oblique cases they decline together, in the plural. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, in the table двадцати́ одного́ is specified as the animate accusative of двадцать один, while it should be двадцать одного, as in the usage examples. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

And instead of двадцати́ the page has дцадцати́, though I guess it’s a typo. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Russian numerals are inordinately complicated ... (Classical Arabic numerals are equally complicated, but in speech, a vastly simplified system is used, even when the grammar is otherwise fully classical.) Benwing2 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: The same is true for Russian: hardly anyone can decline them properly, too complicated and irrational. For this reason declining long numerals is a common task on Russian exams, and one students hate. Instead people say whatever comes in their head first, so every compound number has a nearly indefinite number of occasional forms, and the tendency is to reduce most numerals to just a handful ones. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk Will fix. Benwing2 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk Fixed. Please let me know if you see any more errors, thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I just realised that the choice of the adjective form depends somewhat on the noun gender: for masculine and neuter nouns it is the genitive plural, but for feminine nouns it’s either the nominative or the genitive plural: две́ больши́х кни́ги or две́ больши́е кни́ги. The nominative sounds a bit better and more usual. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk Should I put both in? And does this also apply to the accusative case (ви́жу две́ больши́е кни́ги) and animate feminines (есть две ру́сские же́нщины, ви́жу две́ ру́сские же́нщины)? Benwing2 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I’d say nominative or better both. It applies to the accusative case, but only for inanimate feminines. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: But for compounds numerals, of course, it applies for animate feminines as well. Sorry. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk I updated 52 appropriately. Benwing2 (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Thanks, now everything is right. However, the table for восемьдесят восемь doesn’t look very good; could the variant instrumentals be split in two lines somehow? Guldrelokk (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk: Let me think about that ... it is possible to implement but requires a bit of trickiness, and might not be worth it since it applies only to восемьдесят восемь (other 8* and *8 numbers will have only two variants). The other possibility is to just list the longest and shortest forms (восемью́десятью восемью́, восьмью́десятью восьмью́); this might be the best solution, as it seems to me it would be a bit strange to mix longer and shorter variants of восемью́/восьмью́. What do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Right, two forms should be enough. Guldrelokk (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This may be something that is no longer relevant and could be ignored. Up to you. It used to be the rule that adjectives standing between два, три, четыре and a masculine OR feminine singular noun had the same two choices:

два́ ру́сских ма́льчика (two Russian boys)

два́ ру́сские ма́льчика (two Russian boys)

I know this was true in early 20th century, and was still true up through the 1960s when I learned Russian. Today, most people would disagree. (In fact, it seems I often use slightly antiquated rules and forms because my Russian is still stuck in the 1960s.)

You might like to add information about distributive numbers (as in three each). In these expressions, the numbers два, две, три, and четыре, when preceded by по, do not change form, and the following noun must be in the genitive singular (as expected).

Они стоя́ли по́ два (по́ три, по четы́ре) в ряд. (They stood two in a row.)

Я дал де́тям по́ два я́блока. (I gave the children two apples each.)

Она́ должна́ его́ принима́ть по́ две столо́вых ло́жки три ра́за в день.

In addition, the numbers со́рок, девяно́сто, and сто, when preceded by по, do not change form, and the following noun must be in the genitive plural (again as expected).

Ка́ждая вещь сто́ит по со́рок рубле́й. (Every article costs 40 rubles each.)

The numbers оди́н, одна́, and одно́, when preceded by по, must be in the dative, as also the following noun.

Я дал им по одному́ рублю́. (I gave them one ruble each.)

Я посла́л им по одно́й кни́ге. (I sent them one book each.)

All other numbers preceded by по must be in the dative, but the noun in the genitive plural.

Мы получи́ли по пяти́ книг. (We received five books each.)

Мой брат дал ка́ждому по пяти́десяти копе́ек. (My brother gave them fifty kopeks each.)

Я посыла́ю мои́м двум сыновья́м по шести́десяти пяти́ рубле́й в ме́сяц. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, Atitarev, Guldrelokk If expressions like два́ ру́сские ма́льчика are no longer accepted, maybe we shouldn't include them. But the distributive number info should probably be included. Does this also apply to compound numbers e.g. два́дцать два́, три́дцать три́? Benwing2 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, Atitarev, Guldrelokk: Yes, these expressions are real, sorry, forgot precisely because they don’t sound grammatical to speakers now (I’d be surprised if people still talked like that in the 1960s, did they?). However, they occur in classic literature, and so I think may be mentioned. Guldrelokk (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, Atitarev, Guldrelokk What happens with e.g. 51 (пятьдеся́т оди́н) and 52 (пятьдеся́т два́)? Do you get по пяти́десяти одно́й копе́йке and по пяти́десяти два копе́йки? Benwing2 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, Atitarev, Guldrelokk:: All the expressions with the dative are dated, except for those with оди́н, nowadays they usually have the accusative. Moreover, the shift of stress on по is now optional: по́ два́. With compound numerals, the rules are those of their last part: thus, по пятидесяти одной копейке, по пятьдесят две копейки, по пятьдесят пять копеек or dated по пятидесяти пяти копеек. Guldrelokk (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, Benwing2, Guldrelokk:: I agree. (@G.: Did you ping yourself?) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, Atitarev, Guldrelokk If the case of the numbers are по is the accusative, do you ever get animate accusative двух, трёх, etc.? How do you say "2 people each" or "53 people each"? Benwing2 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: No: по два человека, по пятьдесят три человека. Guldrelokk (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk, yes, at least some people in the 1960s still talked this way. Most of my Russian teachers were military during World War II. Kolosovsky, a tank commander, was the eldest, born in 1896, I think. Gleb Podmoshensky was the youngest, born in Riga in 1934. Podmoshensky died in 2014. All of them were born between 1896 and 1934 and they talked this way. Younger Russians had made this change by the 1960s, but the first time I heard the modern way of talking was in 1967. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk I added text for distributive numbers. Please check what I've added. In particular I'm not sure my examples for distributive numbers with челове́к are valid; even in English they're a bit awkward but I couldn't think of anything better. Benwing2 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown Benwing2 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: The examples are fine, but now I’m wondering if they indeed belong in the numeral entries. What was worthy of noting is the aberrant lack of agreement in dated constructions of the type по пятидесяти пяти книг; but since you chose not to include them, what has left may be better covered at по (po). Guldrelokk (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait, perhaps there is no lack of agreement anyway. The numerals seem to bear the genitive here, not the dative: по девятисот рублей, not по девятистам рублей. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk I think you're right. The description of distributive numerals is already mentioned at по (po) (where it in fact says that thousand, million, billion, etc. are in the dative rather than the accusative). It is a bit surprising to me that the case varies depending on the number (I'd expect it to be consistent), and also that два, три, четы́ре are always inanimate even with animate nouns, but this can all be noted under по. Benwing2 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk I added usage notes for distributive numerals to по, please check them out, thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, KoreanQuoter, Useigor, Wanjuscha, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk): BTW the reason I've omitted the info on dated constructions is that there's already too many complications with numerals as-is. If we want to include such info, it can go in an appendix, e.g. Appendix:Russian numerals. (Or Appendix:Russian numbers? I honestly don't know why we have a category CAT:Russian cardinal numbers but the headword says "numeral". Hardly any English speakers (me included) are able to properly say what the distinction is between "number" and "numeral", and tend to say "number" for both in common parlance.) Benwing2 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, KoreanQuoter, Useigor, Wanjuscha, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk): Benwing2 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: The usage notes are correct (I’ve attempted to enhance one example). Guldrelokk (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk Thanks. Your example is significantly less awkward. Benwing2 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (Notifying Benwing2, Cinemantique, KoreanQuoter, Useigor, Wanjuscha, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk): I haven't been very helpful, sorry. I agree with all the current usage examples in this revision. --06:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, KoreanQuoter, Useigor, Wanjuscha, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk): I have now created or re-created all the compound number pages from 21 through 99, generated all the non-lemma forms and added pronunciation. Consistent with the discussion above, the usage examples on these pages don't contain info on distributive numbers. Benwing2 (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)