Talk:Russian grammar

message: Well, I'm glad to see the russian grammar page has improved by such a huge degree since I last saw it! Good work, whoever contributed.
Havronina may be a great Russian grammar worker, but her place is definitively not in this article. Bogdan | Talk 16:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: : though the aorist sporadically occurs in secular literature as late as the second half of the eighteenth century, and survives as an odd form in direct narration (а он пойди да скажи [ɐ on pɐjˈdʲi də skɐˈʐɨ], etc., exactly equivalent to the English colloquial "so he goes and says"), recategorized as a usage of the imperative
Are you sure? Slavic (at least Russian, as far as I know) imperative inflections stem from Indoeuropean optative forms (Greeks used optative as a polite imperative as well). This way, forms like "знай он это, он бы туда не пошёл" ("know (imp.) he that, he he wouldn't go there") just reflect an old optative usage recategorized as imperative (which has been actually optative from the very beginning). Maybe phrases like "а он пойди да скажи" are actually somehow optatives as well, not aorists? Exctracted and recategorized from conditional phrases I cited above -- because phrases like "а он пойди да скажи" imply that the action was unpredictable, and thus fits optative pretty well. Aorist has been lost in colloquial speech since ages, I don't think it would survive this way, especially in folklore-styled expressions like these. And aorist forms are quite different from imperatives forms, they can't be confused: aorist zva, but imper. zovi; aorist. plete (not sure about the stress, at least in Bulgarian it's plete), but imper. pleti. Can you cite someone to support your claims? 77.40.102.207 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aorist and "odd" forms 

message: Cyrillic italics are notoriously hard for new learners to read.
Why are so many of the examples in Russian written in Italics?  It's obviously a different alphabet, so I see no need to further set off the text. Taksim25 16:47, 18 August 2005
:That is not true. There are fonts that use cursive italics and fonts that use so called false italics. You can change the fonts in your browser and/or wikipedia settings. --Hhielscher 15:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Cyrillic text should be accompanied by romanizations. See also Russian grammar:Talk#Romanizations should accompany Cyrillic below.--Pětušek 19:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Is the time up for replacing those &#nnnn; character codes (7 unicode characters each!) with plain cyrillic characters?  The page is already 40K in size!
:Kkmº 12:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace Hex/Entitly Characters with Real Cyrillic 

message: I'm fairly certain that the IPA in the article doesn't take into account phonological processes like vowel reduction.  I think someone familiar with Russian phonology should go through and incorporate such processes.  AEuSoes1 12:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vowel Reduction

message: This section contains the quote, "Verbal conjugation is subject to three persons in two numbers and two simple tenses (present/future and past), with periphrastic forms for the future and subjunctive, as well as imperative forms ..." This seems to imply that subjunctive and imperative are comparable to tenses, rather than moods. It also soes not discuss moods outside of this sentence (that I could see). I understand that perhaps one needs to use a periphrastic particple for future tense or for particular tenses within an imperative or subjunctive mood, as that is true in a number of languages, but merging the two concepts together is unclear. Are imperative and subjunctive moods always periphrastic, regardless of tense? Is there only one tense available in each of the aforementioned moods? What other moods are there? (ie, indicative obviously, but is there a conditional?) I can't update this, as I have no idea how Russian works (which is why I was looking up the page).--Frick898 20:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moods versus Tenses in Verbs 

message: I inserted these since they are used quite frequently with dates, etc.  The number sections could be combined into a single table if anyone has the time.  Hopefully I didn't step on any toes. :-)
--Elgordon 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinal Numbers 

message: Over on the article on Indo-European ablaut there has been a request for examples from other languages (at present we refer to English, German, Latin and Greek).  Any chance of some of you Slavic experts looking over there to see if you have anything to add?  Possibly a whole sub-section on ablaut in Slavic languages would be justified?  --Doric Loon 13:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kinda late, but: дохнуть - дух - дышать (abluat from *u : *ou : *ū) 195.113.149.177 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ablaut

message: Hi, sorry if I'm being obtuse, but it looks like the table of personal pronouns is missing a header row or two — the table gives each pronoun's case, but not its person, gender, or number. Could someone help? Thanks! Ruakh 00:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.Bridesmill 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :-) Ruakh 01:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal pronoun table? 

message: Another thing worth mentioning is gerund and participle formation for adjectives and verbs respectively.  These are widely used in literature.
ie (masculine forms): ~вший, ~[у¦ю]щий, (мы form)+ ~ый, ~ен
Passive Past Participle.
Active Past Participle.
(each from imperfective and from perfective verbs).
Gerund (present and past).
I can't think of many examples i'm afraid, but here goes (correct me if i'm wrong):
Писа́тель, написа́вший э́ту кни́гу, – молодо́й поэ́т. (The writer who wrote this book is a young poet.)
Ма́льчику, чита́ющему э́ту кни́гу, четы́ре го́да. (The boy who is reading this book is 4 years old.)
Кни́ги, выпуска́емые в Росси́и, интере́сные. (Books [which are] published in Russia are interesting.)
[need example for: "subject [which has been] verb..."]
Си́дя в ко́мнате, она́ чита́ла кни́гу (sitting in the room, she read [/was reading] a book)
Знав (having known)
I'm really not 100% about these examples, so please correct me.  Thanks.
Mattura
:There is no gerund in Russian. What do you mean by Russian gerund? Please, provide examples. Perhaps you mean прича́стие (e.g. зна́ющий) and дееприча́стие (e.g. зна́я)? Both прича́стие and дееприча́стие are rendered by participle into English. --Andrei Knight 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Деепричастие is certainly not like gerund in English, but like gérondif in French.Oudv (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerund 

message: Could someone verify note #1 after the table in the Russian grammar#Adjectives section? I find it very strange to see "-ое/-ого" for neuter accusative singular (since neuter forms are supposed to show nominative-accusative syncretism throughout IE). Perhaps it is more accurate to say that animate neuter nouns can combine with masculine adjectives via natural gender agreement (therefore, maybe also in the nominative)? I don't actually know any animate neuter nouns, so I can't offer any test data. CapnPrep 11:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjective declension 

message: Unless I'm going blind, there don't seem to be any superscript numbers in the table for the 2nd declension of nouns, despite there being numbered notes below it describing exceptions. I'm no expert in russian grammar so I'm not going to edit it, but I would guess that either there are no significant exceptions to the endings given, or the numbers have not been attached to the relevant ending(s). Mr Poo 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the first line in the Nouns section "Nominal declension is subject to six cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, and locative or prepositional)" ? It lists six noun cases, giving two alternate names to the 6th case. To be precise, yes, it should just say "prepositional" there, with locative explained in the following sentence. --Cubbi (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd noun declension 

message: I added the Russian grammatical term in many cases, changed the order of cases N, G, D, A, I, P to suit the way cases are taught in Russia. Please discuss here if you have objections. Anatoli (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: (Atitarev copied StradivariusTV's message)
Привет! I noticed you changed the ordering of cases to NGDAIL, which I understand is the ordering taught in Russia and in some English coursebooks. But for an encyclopedia it seems more elegant to present the cases in a way that groups identical desinences together. This is not a Wikipedia-only invention; the external link here uses the ordering NAGDLI, as does the online grammar here. Still others use the ordering NAGDIL, like A Comprehensive Russian Grammar by Wade and Essential Russian Grammar by Kemple. At any rate it's something that merits discussion. Strad (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't mind moving your message here. :) NGDAIP (ИРДВТП) is much more common and is my preferred method and I recommend it foreign learners or users, as it makes it easier to use native (Russian) resources later. I don't want to be an authority on this but let some more people decide. Note that German cases (there are only 4) are always presented in the same order:  Nominativ, Genitiv, Dativ, Akkusativ). It is the case for other Slavic languages as well (+ Vocative for some languages). Anatoli (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: As for me, I also think, that it is better to place cases in their traditional order, rather than in order of similar desinences. This order is maintained not only in Russian and German, but Polish, Greek has the same order.--Армонд@ 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put my money on traditional/pedagogical order as well.  What exactly is the benefit of putting them in order of similar suffixes?  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a purse, and articles must be in encyclopedic style--Армонд@ 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an encyclopedic style is at stake here.  Perhaps you could elaborate.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: As for me, the article, attached above here is the first example of such ordering of cases in Russian--Армонд@ 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi. I'm a non-native speaker that is in the early stages of learning Russian. I can't cite any external references or examples, I can only speak from my own personal experience. Having the entries in NAGDIP order has been incredibly helpful as the Acc. entries seem to fit "logically" between Nom. and Gen. because of the "variable" declension. I don't know if that counts for anything, but as an end-user, having the switch to NGDAIP has been incredibly confusing. Especially since the books I am currently using (http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Russian-Grammar-Yourself-Language/dp/0071752706/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1374676451&sr=8-2&keywords=essential+russian+grammar) use the previous order. Okay so I guess I did cite something. Anyways, for what it counts, I hope you change it back to NAGDIP. Thanks! AgentLandline (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian case ordering 

message: All Russian words and grammatical endings in the article are in Cyrillic. Shouldn't they be accompanied by Roman transliterations for the benefit of those who do not know the Cyrillic alphabet?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.64.209 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be quite honest, the Cyrillic alphabet can be learned in less than an hour.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.106.138 (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the latter comment (indeed, the Cyrillic alphabet does not belong to the most difficult ones to learn), I also agree with the former one: whoever may happen to be looking merely for quick information on, or examples of, various aspects of the Russian grammar (for comparative, reference or any other purposes), should not be forced to have to delve much deeper in things not directly pertaining to them. If one, for instance, wants to get a quick, albeit cursory, look at the differences between the Russian and German conjugations, why should they have to learn the Cyrillic alphabet in order to be able to read the information? Is that not an excessive requirement? I believe it is. --Pětušek 19:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanizations should accompany Cyrillic 

message: As a reader, I feel that all the translations of grammatical vernacular were pretty unnecessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.176.135 (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment..? 

message: I'm learning Russian, and I'm finding it a bit difficult to comprehend the concept of unidirectional and multi-directional verbs of motion. I can find very little discussion of this concept anywhere online. (In Russian, rather than distinguishing between "come" and "go", there are two words: "идти" which means "travel on foot in one direction" and "ехать" which means "travel on foot in multiple directions/ there and back/ etc". Then they have pairs of verbs denoting the same concept except by vehicle, by flight, by swimming/sailing etc) why isn't it discussed in this article and are there any other languages with such a distinction? I think I heard that ancient Greek did. Hypershock (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean ходить, not ехать. As you can see, this page is rated as a "C", which means that a lot of basic information is still missing. But your questions go beyond the scope of this talk page. I would recommend going to a language discussion site like Word Reference. CapnPrep (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unidirectional and multidirectional verbs of motion. 

message: IAt what time in the history of the Russian/Slavonic languages did the Vocative case disappear? 
Did the Russian language ever have a Vocative case?  216.99.198.244 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As Vocative case#Russian correctly points out, Russian has a Vocative case in current colloquial use, different from the one that was used in Old Slavonic. It misses out a somewhat outdated form of Vocative which is mentioned in the beginning of this talk page. --Cubbi (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocative case? 

message: First off, the verbs listed as 'irregular' might be irregular as far as first year language teaching materials are concerned, but except for есть и дать, none of the verbs listed are irregular. Yeah, a couple have stress on their infinitive ending (вести, идти), or are otherwise non-suffixed (жить), or are а-suffixed (писать), so they aren't models for forming new verbs from borrowed stems. But they're not irregular. Neither are видеть or ходить; one is -e- suffixed and another is an absolutely regular second conjugation verb. A footnote mentions palatalization, an entirely productive process in Russian; why isn't it discussed in the text instead of left out as an "irregularity"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke Atreides (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the verbs section should be expanded and I think that an article Russian verbs would be a good idea. Andries (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Irregular" verbs 

message: Возможно, в статью вкралась неточность (я выделил текст). Возможно, вместо множественного числа "books" должно быть единственное: "a book" в первом случае, с неопределённым артиклем и просто "book" во втором (неопределённый артикль заменён словом "any"):
The use of a direct object in the genitive instead of the accusative in negation signifies that the noun is indefinite, compare: "Я не вижу книги" ("I don't see books a book" or "I don't see any books book") and "Я не вижу книгу" ("I don't see the book").
--EightAitches (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Небольшая неточность 

message: Answer to a negative sentence
При ответе "нет" неопределенность. Можно сказать Нет (В смысле дождь НЕ идёт), а можно сказать Нет (в смысле - Нет, дождь всё-таки идёт)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlegTar (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Negation: Adverbial answers to a negative sentence 

message: <Q>There are two voices, active and passive, which is constructed by the addition of a reflexive suffix -ся/сь/- to the active form.</Q>
There are many verbs on -ся which are active, e.g. влюбиться (to fall in love).
<Q>The subjunctive mood in Russian is formed by adding the particle бы after a verb in the past tense.</Q>
The particle бы is often added after first word of the sentence, or after subject:
:Кто бы говорил! - Who ever would say (it)! (i.e. you are wrong man to)
:Чаю бы я выпил охотно, но лучше бы пообедать. - I would have pleasure to have some tea, but it would be better to have dinner.
:Без электричества мы бы смотрели телевизор при свечах! - Without electricity, we had to watch TV in candle light!
<Q>Grammatical conjugation is subject to three persons in two numbers and two simple tenses (present/future and past)...</Q>
After learning in Russian school I believe that there are tree (present, future and past) tences in Russian: past time (inflected by number and gender and produced from infinitive basement), present (exists for imperfective verbs only and has number and person) and future (for perfective verbs looks well quiet like present for imperfective ones, for imperfective is formed with forms of auxiliary verb буду, будешь... or стану, станешь... plus infinitive). This is not correct to suppose that present and furure for Russian language is the same. Ignatus (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubtful with verbs 

message: I can't remember any. The example was given is in fact ends more on -а, than on -о, see :ru:Рыбы-прилипалы; so does other suspected spoken-language words as кидала, зубрила etc. (ending them on -о seems to be possible but uncommon, maybe deprecated). Masculines on -о are common in Ukrainian, but Ukrainian surnames as Наливайко are undeclined in Russian. Ignatus (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: possibly the masculine noun домишко (little house) falls into this category?--216.110.25.2 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes. Ignatus (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masculine nouns on -о 

message: The last paragraph above First declension is in contradiction with the numbering used below for the first two declensions. It also omits the fact (implicitly mentioned under Third declension) that the single masculine noun путь is regarded as belonging to the third declension. — Tonymec (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering the declensions 

message: I came here looking for information about how the participles are formed, but there doesn't seem to be anything. The noun and adjective sections have nice tables with endings and such, but the verb section seems very lacking in that area. Could someone who knows their Russian or has good sources provide more details in the article? It would be much appreciated. CodeCat (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participles and more detailed information about verb conjugation 

message: Thanks to user:Seu Eliseu and others for supplying examples of paradigms, but don't we now have too much of them? I think, one paradigm per part of speach is usually enough, others can be good on Wikibooks or at least in separate article on this Russian word class (if anybody writes it). Ignatus (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ignatus, I think you are right. As soon as it will be possible, I'll create separate articles on some parts of speach and transfer example tables there. Seu Eliseu (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much example tables? 

message: I don't know Russian but this might be a mistake.
Second declension, писа'телём.
http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.123.157 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right, thanks! The typo has been corrected. Seu Eliseu (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake? 

message: Seems like in English "possessive adjectives" are often understood as what I would call "possessive pronouns", that's why real possessive adjectives of Russian like "мамин" (mom's) have fallen out of this article. Can recommend a source for completion:  (just the first what have found; contains errors as *петрого instead of Петрова, and seemingly author didn't mention the difference in declesion of surnames and adjectives, like that genitive masculine are Путином but маминыshame to me, they are similar, both on -ым 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Adjectives and determines normally modify nouns and take case and gender endings to match the noun. Pronouns are independent and don't modify anything, but may take case endings as needed, and gender endings depending on what they refer to. мамин is a possessive adjective, but so is мой. They both have a full set of case and gender forms like other adjectives, and even have genitive forms of their own. On the other hand, меня is not a possessive adjective but a pronoun, specifically the genitive of the personal pronoun я, in the same way that мамы is the genitive of мама. So the name "possessive pronoun" is really very misleading. CodeCat (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's difference in terminology of what is pronoun. The one common in Russian school is now in :ru:Местоимение: 'pronoun is anything which has no lexical meaning but has grammatical one and substitute other words' (but about ones substituting adverbs usually "pronominal adverbs" is said, however). For what I can read from English article, мой is determiner. But what I do mean, is definitely neither one nor another, but an open-class adjective; in Russian possessive adjectives w suffixes -ов and -ин have much special in declesion, and this is what should be described. UPD: Ah, that's a RS, describing well this matter in all Slavic languages, also in Russian: http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no24_ses/11_Matasovic.pdf. Ignatus (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a part of speech, мой and мамин are the same. Both are modifiers, and not pronouns. Adjectives and determiners are both modifiers, I don't know if the difference is always clear. But I don't see much of a difference between "belonging to me" and "belonging to mother" in terms of structure. The definition that Russian Wiktionary gives seems more related to Deixis rather than to being a pronoun. Specifically, I would say that a pronoun is a "deictic noun": a noun whose referent is determined entirely by the context in which it is used. Seen that way, мой is a "deictic adjective" while мамин is not. CodeCat (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  But его and мамин are not: его does not change in number or in gender when the noun that it is attached to changes, it only gets substituted with её or их when the possessor becomes a female or many persons respectively. This is the source of the confusion that native Russians have with the Romance possessive adjectives: the Russian possessive pronouns are different in structure. I think it makes sense to keep the term the way it is kept in the Russian schoolbooks. - 92.100.162.181 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessive adjectives 

message: *For example, "Говорят, чудес на свете нет" without subject. I hear this verbal construction quite often. 
This can be translated, I think, (I am not a native speaker of English nor Russian.)
*"People say that miracles do not exist." 
In other languages than English, like German and Dutch it is easier to translate correctly e.g.
*German: "Man sagt dass es keine Wunder gibt."
*Dutch: "Men zegt dat wonderen niet bestaan."
May be somebody can add that to the article who is better in Russian than I. Andries (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that just "impersonal they" like English and Dutch also have? CodeCat (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: May be, I do not like to use impersonal they ("ze") in Dutch, because I think it is vague. When others use it I often do not understand who is "they". I prefer to use "men" in Dutch.Andries (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing: impersonal active voice

message: Just to make sure, the imperfective aspect does not mean the action is incomplete ("я ходил в магазин" means a completed action, and this is very often the case with the imperfective verbs), and the perfective aspect does not mean the action is logically complete, i.e. has led to its own result ("и тогда я пошёл на улицу" does not yet mean that he managed to walk out of his house). The distinction between the perfective and the imperfective aspect in Russian has a different character. 
Also, "спать" and "поспать" is not a verb pair, since there are other perfective verbs, formed from the verb "спать" by means of a prefix ("переспать", "проспать"); all of them differ in their meanings from "спать", but so does "поспать". The true pairs usually differ in suffixes, not in prefixes: "приглашать" vs. "пригласить" (here the imperfective verb is formed from the perfective one). - 89.110.2.153 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Aspects 

message: Why do all the paradigms have three columns (ie. "-а	-я	-ия")? Why are these columns not labelled? What are they supposed to mean? Poorly explained.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why three columns? 

message: To me, a native speaker, the explanations of the sentence "I went to the shop" look possible, but a) deeply incomplete b) inter-applicable, i.e. an explanation of one case works as well if not better for another case c) some of them not exactly wrong, but taken out of the blue. They point to to the fact that there is a difference between them, but they don't say correctly what it is. Also, they omit the influence of sentence stress, which is more important for the aspects of meaning considered there than the word order. The word order matters for the meaning, but not in this way. Compare:
* Дома стены помогают (at home, even the walls help[, so no point pointing out anything else that helps at home as well]);
* Дома помогают стены (at home, you can use the help of the [dear] walls). Possible continuations in this case: 1) somewhere else, you can use the help of something else, 2) that's what the home is about.
Also, for "the road to the hell is paved with good intentions":
* Благими намерениями вымощена дорога в ад ("good intentions lead straight to the hell", which sounds weird, but is the accepted form);
* Дорога в ад вымощена благими намерениями (to enter the hell, you ought to have good intentions/those people who enter the hell have good intentions [as well]).
:: As a side note: I have met more than once a claim that the sentences with different word order "have the same meaning". This is strictly wrong and is a myth: there are many cases (these included), where at first you could hardly notice there is anything at all in common between two sentences with the same word stock, but different order; in the second case, I could notice that the things mentioned are the same, in the first case, even this is not guaranteed, as the things under reference are more figurative than real. Just in case. - 89.110.6.166 (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "can express". - 89.110.6.166 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: In the third example of the section "Syntax", I don't see how it can mean a sudden decision any more than any other example in the list. Anyway, one who composed the list, I think, ignored the fact that these phrases can be pronounced with different intonation, and in different situations; I think that he or she was too quick. Are these examples sourced? If not (they don't seem to be), then they are to be deleted; I don't find in them any concrete value anyway except for the vague idea that changing the word order changes the perception. - 89.110.9.191 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word order 

message: All of the tables for noun/adjective endings have numbers on them and notes below stating that some endings change depending on the word because of the spelling rules. Would it not make the tables much easier to understand if these notes for each table were gotten rid of, and it were simply stated at the start of the section that all of the endings comply with the spelling rules? I understand the exception to this being when an ending is either -e or -ё depending on stress, that should be specified as it is not deducible from the spelling rules. IAmTrainedInGorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declension Tables 

message: I think it would be good to start adding information on the Indo-European language equivalents of Russian noun cases. I've added a brief summation into the "Nouns" section, which I've attempted to craft as a succinct but relevant summation. Please let me know if this isn't up to standards and feel free to add/elaborate. The source I've used is the website Master Russian, a well established and (in my experience) reliable Russian language website;  let know if this isn't regarded as a reputable enough source. U65945 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of Russian Cases 

message: I'm going to create a stand alone article for russian declension. The section on noun, adjective, demonstrative, and pronoun declension is pretty hefty. I think there are two options:
1. Cut off the complete section and link it to the standalone article
or
2. Maintain only the most basic information and only the principle declensions for each paradigm.
I prefer the second option. Any one have any ideas or comments? Shabidoo | Talk 14:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a heavy update to Numerals section there, so it's now much more detailed than this short version here. Tacit Murky (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Standalone article for declension

message: Hello, while I was reading the article I noticed it doesn't say anything about the relative pronouns. I thought placing it here, since i saw no one has noticed it yet(?). I don't know the declension etc. of those rel. pronouns, so I suggest someone adding it to the artice or atleast refering to it, if it has its own article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.9.204 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative pronouns 

message: I am new to Russian, but I believe this to be an error/miscommunication:
when the stem for чита́ть is чита–. Unless т is pronounced as a sibilant in this case, according to the definition, it should be in second conjugation.
Also:
when the stem for говори́ть is говор-, meaning it should fall under the first conjugation.
If someone could explain this more clearly I would be grateful.
Mrmodnar111 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjugation explanations 

message: Think of the unidirectional verbs as picturing the motion of arrows (the tip is the indication of direction). One way, having direction. Think of the multidirectional verbs as picturing motion in rings - no direction, just motion, there and back, repetitive. An arrow can start, be on the way, and arrive. They can forms perfectives. Ring motion is only underway. They can't form perfectives. Arrow verbs can represent the near future, they point to what comes next. And note that a number of common ring verbs have a ring 'o' in the stem - води́ть, вози́ть, гоня́ть, ходи́ть, носи́ть, броди́ть. Wodorabe (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbs of Motion - The Ring and the Arrow. 

message: There's also a generic gender (as in жадина, бука) for words that can be equally used both for male and female subjects. Could we add this to an article? Have anyone seen a good source for this fact in English? 109.110.66.155 (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 5 genders (M, F, N, общий - common or general, and обоюдный - mutual or ambivalent), and what you are proposing is a common gender. Difference is in agreement model: it is unified for mutual gender (он/она настоящая собака - unified as F.) and dual for common (бедный/бедная сирота). That is supposed to be mentioned, but Eng. sources are rare… Tacit Murky (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic gender 

message: I am a beginning level adult learning Russian -- not attending a class, but working with a very good tutor. Hence, my question may be naïve. But here it is:
Why is there no section on Russian prepositions? I would find it helpful to have a table of at least the most common prepositions and the case(s) with which they are associated. The information on prepositions is scattered through the article, chiefly (naturally) in the section on nouns.
Thanks!
Andrew H — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.48.194 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nouns section have most of them already. Much more troubling in absence of general pro-forms table (pronouns and pro-adjectives). Tacit Murky (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepositions 

message: This aspect of the plural is not mentioned at all. Please add.--Prandr (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — Tacit Murky (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of nouns with -анин, -янин 

message: It seems you forgot in the article the particle  "-то".
In a colloquial language even in Moscow this "particle" is used as a definite article. 1
# «В кино пойдешь?»  —  Are you going to the cinema? – (This is a new question)
# «В кино-то пойдешь?»  —  In the movie, will you go? – (Talk about the movie was already before.) 
In the dialects:
«In the northeastern and eastern Russian dialects, the development of combinations of names with a particle «то» went in the same direction as in the Bulgarian language - from particle to article, performing the same function: combined with words denoting facts and events already known to the speaker and listener or simply well-known» (Букринская И. А, Кармакова О. Е. и другие. Карта 25. Изменяемая частица -то в русских говорах. Язык русской деревни. Диалектологический атлас. Архивировано 1 февраля 2012 года. (Проверено 24 января 2014))
In frequently used expressions "одна женщина сказала…", "один учёный доказал…" the words "одна" and "один" are used not as numerals, but as indefinite articles. German and Hungarian (not English) translators of Google are aware of this.
# один учёный доказал –to De- ein Wissenschaftler hat bewiesen –to Ru- ученый доказал
# один учёный доказал –to Hu- egy tudós bizonyította –to Ru- ученый продемонстрировал
That is, there is no "article category", but it is used quite often :) МетаСкептик12 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, particle section here is nonexistent yet. So all other particles are missing as well :( Then there are proforms, where «-то» is an uncertainty quantifier: кто-то, некто [joined], где-то, куда-то, etc. These are not «above-mentioned topic» denoters. … «Один учёный» can be translated better as «some scientist», not «a scientist». Tacit Murky (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Joined" «некто» is «не» + «кто» — совсем не то. «Один учёный» out of context should be translated as «one scientist». For «one scientist proved …» this is not a good translation.  «Some scientist» can be translated better as «некий учёный, какой-то учёный». In many languages, the indefinite article coincides with the numeral one. In a similar example in this article, the word «один» is translated as an indefinite article. «Почему́ ты так до́лго? – Да так, встре́тил одного́ дру́га, пришло́сь поговори́ть ("Why did it take you so long?" – "Well, I met one [=a] friend and had to talk")». I think that this is correct. МетаСкептик12 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

text:  By the way, the translator Google thinks that "некий учёный доказал" -> "a scientist has proved". МетаСкептик12 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The particle  "-то" and articles 

message: I know I'm bringing up an old debate, but I really see no good reason to use the NAGDIP order. The traditional case order, used in Russian too, is NGDAIP. The only reason I know of other orders being used is because certain cases have merged and therefore are put next to each other. However this doesn't happen in Russian, and using the NAGDIP order is like copying the system sometimes used for convenience in German or Latin, because Nominative and Accusative tend to be similar in those langauges. --Antondimak (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: By contrast, I see no good reason to use the NGDAIP order. At all, for any language, actually. Rua (mew) 16:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

text: That's a historical issue. See here:  . — Tacit Murky (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case order 

message: In adjectives section, it says that the word for ‘beige’ doesn’t change, but we actually have a Russian word for ‘beige’ that does, it’s ‘бежевый’. Please somebody note and fix this! The word ‘беж’ is an incorrect and rarely used modern Russian addition, due to the unfortunate stream of English words leaking into it. ‘Бежевый’ is a word. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan Sherwin (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, fixed. Tacit Murky (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjectives section...  

message: There is no section for copular constructions. Also the verb "быть" ("be") is missing from the template for irregular verbs.Merijn2 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copular constructions 

message: Does anybody else feel like the colored letters in the verbs charts could be replaced with something like an underline? I don't know if it's just cause I'm colorblind but I literally cannot read any of those without squirting a TON😭 Logan Sherwin (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colored text