🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul29.224806.26059@athena.mit.edu>
pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:

>Don't bother to read this unless you care about Russian syntax.

>In article <1992Jul29.160249.14294@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <36538@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> 
>>djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:

>>>In article <1992Jul23.113534.4232@athena.mit.edu> 
>>>pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:

DMP:
>>>>nam est' 

MZ:
>>Wrong case.  Try "u nas est' komu pomoch' yemu"

DMP
>>>>mnye   (bylo)   pomoch'     yemu

MZ:
>>Nonsense.  The ellipsis is not allowable; in any case, it should have
>>been "mnye nado/nuzhno bylo pomoch' yemu"

>>>>me-DAT was-NEUT help-infin  him-DAT

MZ:
>>me-DAT need was-NEUT help-infin  him-DAT

>>>>`I had to help him/I was supposed to help him`
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>There are more interesting cases, like (cf. Gil Rappaport, Russian
>>>>Linguistics circa 1986):
>>>>
>>>>nam est' komu pomoch' yemu

MZ:
>>"u nas est' komu pomoch' yemu"
>>
>>Where do you get these experts?

DP:
>I think the expert was fine, and normally my Russian is pretty good, but
>my memory of the article and my knowledge of Russian slipped here.  The
>interesting point is still the dative subject that cannot be the subject
>of a matrix modal.

Unfortunately, the extent of my syntactical authority is limited to
the qualification of a native speaker.  Even that could be challenged
by someone who believes in first language attrition.  If you want an
informed opinion, ask me about semantics.

DAJ:
>>>Here's one I ran into on soc.culture.soviet a couple of months ago:
>>>
>>>        v  Kieve ix       bylo          polno
>>>        in Kiev  them-GEN was-NEUT/SING full-NEUT/SING

MZ:
>>Wrong case (same spelling):
>>         in Kiev  them-ACC was-NEUT/SING many
>>
>>Attention: "p\'olno" = "full"; "poln\'o" = "many".

DAJ:
>>>        'Kiev was full of them (Russians, as I remember)'
>>>
>>>David Johns

DP:
>I'm not sure you're right here.  Suppose instead of "ix" we had an
>inanimate plural noun, e.g. "jabloko" `apple`.  You get genitive, right,
>not accusative:
>
>	v Kieve jablok bylo polno
>		GEN
>
>	*v Kieve jabloka bylo polno
> 		 ACC
>
>Right?  If I'm wrong, fine, I'll drown my sorrows in Kvas.  But...well
>you tell me.

plural accusative: yablok

plural genitive: yabloki

Otherwise, your examples appear correct.

Try a mass noun:

	*v Kieve zoloto bylo polno
		 GEN

 	 v Kieve zolota bylo polno
 	         ACC

DP:
>In any case, there's an old but nice book on this construction by Dina
>Crockett, published by Slavica some time in the 1970s.

As I recall, your Linguistics and Philosophy department has at least
one native Russian speaker.  I recommend that you get a second opinion.

>>regards,
>>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>>who has the authority of a native speaker

>-David Pesetsky
> who has the authority of a computer account

By the way, "poln\'o" is not listed in Ozhegov, the execrable
reference which is the only source available to me at the moment.
Then again, Russian dictionaries were never known for including
colloquialisms of this sort.

regards,