спорное предложение
Jan. 4th, 2002 03:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avvaВот интересный случай, который в своё время обсуждался в ru.spelling; я так и не смог с уверенностью решить, какой вариант "правильный".
Дано предложение такого вида:
Учение Великого Учителя Тилимилитрямского открывает законы, которые/которых современная наука не знает либо не признаёт.
Так вот: которые или которых?
Тогда я написал следующее по этому поводу:
Сейчас вернулся к нему и опять ни в чём не уверен. Если у кого-то есть какие-либо соображения или доказательства в ту или иную сторону, поделитесь.
Дано предложение такого вида:
Учение Великого Учителя Тилимилитрямского открывает законы, которые/которых современная наука не знает либо не признаёт.
Так вот: которые или которых?
Тогда я написал следующее по этому поводу:
Убили Вы меня, Mary, этим предложением. Уже три часа в голове ворочается и не выходит.
Наверное, всё же, согласование должно быть с подчинённым предложением:
"которые в современной науке важны и полезны" (не "которых")
"которых в современной науке просто нет" (не "которые")
Если так (т.е. если "законы" в главном предложении всего лишь отвлекает и путает [1]), тогда можно и "которые", и "которых". Дело осложняется тем, что отдельно предпочтительней: не знает законов/не признает законы. Всё же, я бы выбрал "которых".
[1] С другой стороны, если бы в главном предложении было "открыло много законов", тогда автоматически шло бы "которых". Чёрт бы его побрал.
Сейчас вернулся к нему и опять ни в чём не уверен. Если у кого-то есть какие-либо соображения или доказательства в ту или иную сторону, поделитесь.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-01-03 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
 ïåðâîì ïðèìåðå ÿ ìîãó ñêàçàòü è òàê, è ýòàê, íî ïîäîçðåâàþ, ÷òî â æèâîé ðå÷è ñêàæó "êîòîðûå". Âî âòîðîì ïðèìåðå ñîâåðøåííî áåçîøèáî÷íî âûáåðó "êîòîðûå".  òðåòüåì òàê æå, êàê â ïåðâîì.
À òû ÷òî äóìàåøü?
no subject
Date: 2002-01-03 05:47 pm (UTC)Ïî-ìîåìó,
Date: 2002-01-03 05:47 pm (UTC)Ó÷èòåëü îòêðûë çàêîíû, êîòîðûå íàóêà íå ïðèçíàåò.
Ó÷èòåëü îòêðûë Èâàíîâûõ, êîòîðûõ íàóêà íà çíàåò. Èëè íå ïðèçíàåò, âñå ðàâíî.
Ò.å. åñëè íåîäóøåâëåííûå - òî êîòîðûå. Âðîäå êàê íåëüçÿ ñêàçàòü "äàé ãâîçäÿ è ìîëîòêà", íî ìîæíî ñêàçàòü "ïîçîâè Èâàíà èëè Ïåòðà". (ýòî, ïîíÿòíî, èëëþñòðàöèÿ, íå äîêàçàòåëüñòâî).
×òî êàñàåòñÿ, "êîòîðûõ íåò", ó ìåíÿ òàêîå îùóùåíèå, ÷òî ýòî íå îòðèöàíèå, òî÷íåå, íå ïðîñòî îòðèöàíèå, à íåêîå èíîå ñîîáùåíèå. Ñòðîèì îòðèöàíèå ê ",êîòîðûå åñòü". Ïîëíàÿ ôîðìà ", êîòîðûå åñòü (ñóòü) òî-òî è òî-òî". Îòðèöàíèå: ",êîòîðûå íå åñòü (íå ñóòü) òî-òî è òî-òî".  ñîâðåìåííîé áåãëîé íàó÷íîé ðå÷è ÷àùå óïîòðåáëÿåòñÿ: ", êîòîðûå íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ òåì-òî è òåì-òî" (õîòÿ ýòî âîò "ÿâëÿåòñÿ" âìåñòî "åñòü" ïðîíèêëî â ðóññêèé ÿçûê ñ ãåãåëüÿíùèíîé ìîñêîâñêèõ êðóæêîâ 1830-õ - 1840-õ ãîäîâ è åùå â 1860-õ âûçûâàëî íåäîóìåíèÿ è íàñìåøêè. À ñåé÷àñ - íåéòðàëüíûé øòàìï. Âî êàê. Íî ýòî óæå ñîâñåì íå ïî òåìå).
no subject
Date: 2002-01-03 06:04 pm (UTC)Âîçìîæíî, ïîëåçíî âûâåðíóòü ôðàçó íàèçíàíêó, íàïðèìåð:
ß õî÷ó óêàçàòü òåáå íà íåêîòîðûå âåùè, êîòîðûå/õ òû íå äîëæåí òðîãàòü. Òû íå äîëæåí òðîãàòü ýòè âåùè (âèíèòåëüíûé, èáî òóò îòðèöàíèå íå îòíîñèòñÿ ïðÿìî ê ïðåäìåòó). Íî: íå òðîãàé ýòèõ âåùåé (ðîä.)
Òå áðþêè, êîòîðûå/õ îí ìíå òàê è íå êóïèë... Îí ìíå òàê è íå êóïèë òå áðþêè. âèíèòåëüíûé, ôóíêöèÿ åäèíñòâåííîãî ÷èñëà, êîíêðåòíûå áðþêè. Íî: îí ìíå íå êóïèë íîâûõ áðþê ðîäèòåëüíûé, ñîáèðàòåëüíîå èìÿ.
Òå ìûñëè, êîòîðûå òû íå ëþáèøü ïðîèçíîñèòü âñëóõ... Òû íå ïðîèçíîñèøü ýòèõ ìûñëåé (ðîä.), íî: òû íå ëþáèøü ïðîèçíîñèòü ýòè ìûñëè. (âèí.)
Òàê ìíå êàæåòñÿ.
no subject
Date: 2002-01-03 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-01-03 06:23 pm (UTC)"êîòîðûå" íà "òàêèå, ÷òî"
"êîòîðûõ" íà "òàêèõ, ÷òî"
×òî â êîíêðåòíîì ñëó÷àå çâó÷èò ñâÿçíî, òî è ïðàâèëüíî.
no subject
Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ìíå óæå íè÷òî íå ìîæåò ïîìî÷ü :(
no subject
Date: 2002-01-03 06:28 pm (UTC)Ìíå ïîíðàâèëèñü ëþäè, êîòîðûõ ÿ âñòðåòèë â ßïîíèè.
Ìíå ïîíðàâèëèñü ëþäè, (òàêèõ, ÷òî???) ÿ âñòðåòèë â ßïîíèè.
èíòåðåñíàÿ øòóêà .)
Date: 2002-01-03 06:29 pm (UTC)äâîéñòâåííîñòü çäåñü âîçíèêàåò òàê:
"çàêîíû" - âèí.ï., çíà÷èò - "êîòîðûå"
ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, "çàêîíû" - ìí.÷èñëî, çíà÷èò ðîä.ï. - "êîòîðûõ"
Âû âåäü âåðíî çàìåòèëè, åñëè ïðèâåñòè âñå ê îäíîìó ïàäåæó ("ìíîãî çàêîíîâ") - âîïðîñîâ íå âîçíèêàåò. Îäíîçíà÷íî "êîòîðûõ".
È êàêîå ïðàâèëî çäåñü èìååò áÎëüøèé ïðèîðèòåò, î÷åíü òðóäíî ñêàçàòü.
Òàê ÷òî, ñòèëèñòè÷åñêè ïðàâèëüíåå, åñëè óäàåòñÿ èçáåæàòü òàêèõ êîíôëèêòîâ.
no subject
Date: 2002-01-03 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-01-03 06:34 pm (UTC)ß õî÷ó êóïèòü òå áðèëëèàíòû, êîòîðûõ (òàêèõ, ÷òî???) òåáå òàê íå õâàòàåò.
Âñ¸ ðàâíî íå ïîäõîäèò Âàøà çàìåíà. Ïîòîìó ÷òî îíà ïðèâÿçûâàåò ïàäåæ ê îçíà÷àåìîìó ñëîâó (áðèëëèàíòû òàêèå, è íèêîãäà òàêèõ), â òî âðåìÿ êàê êîòîðûå/êîòîðûõ èçìåíÿþòñÿ, ïî-âèäèìîìó, â áîëüøèíñòâå ñëó÷àåâ ñîãëàñíî ïàäåæó ïîä÷èí¸ííîãî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ, êàê â ïðèìåðå âûøå.
Re: èíòåðåñíàÿ øòóêà .)
Date: 2002-01-03 06:39 pm (UTC)Ðîäèòåëüíûé ïàäåæ çäåñü òðåáóåò îòðèöàòåëüíàÿ ñòðóêòóðà ïîä÷èí¸ííîãî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ. Ñðàâíèòå:
"... îòêðûâàåò çàêîíû, êîòîðûå çíàåò êàæäûé øêîëüíèê"
(íåâîçìîæíî "êîòîðûõ"!)
Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, âèíèòåëüíûé ïàäåæ òðåáóåò âèíèòåëüíàÿ ôîðìà "çàêîíû", êàê ïîêàçûâàåò ïðèìåð ñ "ìíîãî çàêîíîâ", ãäå äåéñòâèòåëüíî íåâîçìîæíî "êîòîðûå".
Ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî ôîðìà ñëîâà "êîòîðûå" çàâèñèò îò äâóõ ðàçíûõ óñëîâèé: ôîðìû îïðåäåëÿåìîãî ñóùåñòâèòåëüíîãî è ôîðìû îïðåäåëÿþùåãî ïîä÷èí¸ííîãî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ. Êîãäà îíè íå ñîâïàäàþò (÷òî ñàìî ïî ñåáå îøèáêîé ñ÷èòàòüñÿ íå ìîæåò!), âîçíèêàåò êîíôëèêò.
Ïðàâèëüíî?
Re: èíòåðåñíàÿ øòóêà .)
Date: 2002-01-03 06:54 pm (UTC)Ýòî ïî ïðàâèëàì.
À âîò êàê ñêàçàòü ýòî â æèâîé ðå÷è?
Ýòî ïðåäëîæåíèå, âèäèìî, áûëî çàïèñàíî ñî ñëîâ ãîâîðÿùåãî ÷åëîâåêà, êîãäà çà ñòèëèñòèêîé óñëåäèòü òðóäíî, ñëûøíî, ÷òî ÷òî-òî êàê-òî íå òàê çâó÷èò, íî óëîâèòü â ÷åì îøèáêà òðóäíî.
Íàâåðíîå, ñêàçàòü äîïóñòèìî è òàê è òàê.
À âîò ïðè íàïèñàíèè, ëó÷øå ïåðåôðàçèðîâàòü.
Re: èíòåðåñíàÿ øòóêà .)
Date: 2002-01-03 06:58 pm (UTC)À â ïèñüìåííîé, åñëè óæ ìíå î÷åíü íàäî áûëî áû òàê íàïèñàòü, òî ñêîðåå "êîòîðûõ". Íî ëó÷øå äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïåðåôðàçèðîâàòü.
Òàê ìíå êàæåòñÿ.
excuse my english
Date: 2002-01-03 08:44 pm (UTC)let's start with the end:
Ìíå ïîíðàâèëèñü ëþäè, êîòîðûõ ÿ âñòðåòèë â ßïîíèè
is a different problem, first, it is not a negated sentence, and second, indeed, in this template (syntagm)gen. is for animated and acc. for inanimated.It's *not the same template*.
We are, however, discussing something completely different, ie a [negated] template where *variability* acc/gen exists, seemingly not formally conditioned (hence, its labelling as stylistic).
Some verbs allow this variability, some do not.
In your sentence, Anatoly,
"êîòîðûõ â ñîâðåìåííîé íàóêå ïðîñòî íåò" (íå "êîòîðûå")
we are dealing with yet another template, ie that of existential "to be", in which the *subject* (not the object, as in the original sentence!) is always genitive. In present tense, what remains of the verb 'to be' is its conditioning of genitive subject, which is the same as in the past where the verb is intact.
takih zakonov net
drugogo vyhoda ne bylo
detey u nih ne bylo
don't confuse with "locative byt'" such as
vani ne bylo v shkole
because here we have yet another template and yet another variability gen/nom (of the Subject): vanya ne byl v shkole
yes, language is a complicated thing :)
now let's limit our problem as much as possible and thus go back to the initial one, ie the acc/gen variability in the *object* of negated verb.
There are volumes written on this theme, most prominently Timberlake (1975) who started the discussion, and Paducheva (1997). If you are interested, I will supply you with full bibliography on the subject.
Elina, your notion of "individuation", ie specific (acc) versus generic (gen) have been proposed by Timberlake and tentatively accepted, although it doesn't always work.
<
let's start with the end:
Ìíå ïîíðàâèëèñü ëþäè, êîòîðûõ ÿ âñòðåòèë â ßïîíèè
is a different problem, first, it is not a negated sentence, and second, indeed, in this template (syntagm)gen. is for animated and acc. for inanimated.It's *not the same template*.
We are, however, discussing something completely different, ie a [negated] template where *variability* acc/gen exists, seemingly not formally conditioned (hence, its labelling as stylistic).
Some verbs allow this variability, some do not.
In your sentence, Anatoly,
"êîòîðûõ â ñîâðåìåííîé íàóêå ïðîñòî íåò" (íå "êîòîðûå")
we are dealing with yet another template, ie that of existential "to be", in which the *subject* (not the object, as in the original sentence!) is always genitive. In present tense, what remains of the verb 'to be' is its conditioning of genitive subject, which is the same as in the past where the verb is intact.
takih zakonov net
drugogo vyhoda ne bylo
detey u nih ne bylo
don't confuse with "locative byt'" such as
vani ne bylo v shkole
because here we have yet another template and yet another variability gen/nom (of the Subject): vanya ne byl v shkole
yes, language is a complicated thing :)
now let's limit our problem as much as possible and thus go back to the initial one, ie the acc/gen variability in the *object* of negated verb.
There are volumes written on this theme, most prominently Timberlake (1975) who started the discussion, and Paducheva (1997). If you are interested, I will supply you with full bibliography on the subject.
Elina, your notion of "individuation", ie specific (acc) versus generic (gen) have been proposed by Timberlake and tentatively accepted, although it doesn't always work.
<<message too long, I'm posting the follow-up now>>
<a href="http://glosses.net">Renee</a>
part 2 (the message was too long)
Date: 2002-01-03 08:45 pm (UTC)It seems to me that the choice of case for a subordinate clause is, like choice of case for our ordinary close, would primarily be conditioned by the verb (in this case 'znat' which allows for the variability). Further, the choice itself, following Paducheva, will be conditioned by the observer (in this case, the person writing?) and the acc is more marked, ie if some kind of focus is needed (for example, the speaker is bothered) acc will be more likely used. In case of an "informative", general utterance, we will more likely have genitive.
that's all for today.
Renee
also about otkrylo
Date: 2002-01-03 08:56 pm (UTC)otkrylo mnogo zakonov, kotoryh ranshe v prirode ne bylo
otkrylo mnogo zakonov, kotorye nikomu ne nuzhny
but:
otkrylo mnogo zakonov, kotoryh/e Newton ne znal.
In the first sentence, acc is impossible (because of byt'), in the second gen is impossible (because of nuzhny, however, we would use gen with nuzhno), and in the third both are possible. Now substitute otkryl and you will see that it doesnt make any difference.
-R.
Re: excuse my english
Date: 2002-01-03 09:15 pm (UTC)Ïðèìåð ñ ßïîíèåé ÿ ïðèâ¸ë òîëüêî äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû îïðîâåðãíóòü îáùèé ìåòîä ïðîâåðêè çàìåíîé, ê-é ïðåäëîæèë
Òåïåðü ïîçâîëüòå ìíå ïðåäëîæèòü ñëåäóþùóþ ìûñëü: Âû íå ñîâñåì ïîíÿëè îñíîâíóþ èäåþ, ê-þ ÿ ïûòàëñÿ ïðåäëîæèòü. Ìíå õîðîøî èçâåñòíû ñåðü¸çíûå òåîðåòè÷åñêèå ïðîáëåìû ñ âûáîðîì ðîä/âèí ïàäåæåé â óïðàâëåíèè îòðèöàòåëüíîãî ãëàãîëà (êñòàòè, çà ññûëêè íà state of the art â ýòîì âîïðîñå áóäó áëàãîäàðåí, äà); ÿ óòâåðæäàþ, ÷òî çäåñü äåëî íå òîëüêî â ýòîì. Âû áåð¸òå çà àêñèîìó òîò ôàêò, ÷òî ïàäåæ "êîòîðûå" áóäåò çàâèñåòü *òîëüêî* îò ïîä÷èí¸ííîãî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ; ÿ ýòîò ôàêò îñïàðèâàþ è óòâåðæäàþ, ÷òî â ñóùíîñòè íàøà ïðîáëåìà âîçíèêàåò îòòîãî, ÷òî ïàäåæ çàâèñèò êàê îò ïîä÷èí¸ííîãî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ, òàê è îò ïàäåæà îïðåäåëÿåìîãî ñëîâà â ãëàâíîì ïðåäëîæåíèè. Èìåííî â ýòîì (à íå â îáùåé ïðîáëåìå âûáîðà ðîä/âèí ïðè îòðèöàòåëüíîì ãëàãîëå) ñîñòîèò ãëàâíàÿ ïðîáëåìà äàííîãî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ.
Ñîáñòâåííî, â Âàøåì æå îïðîâåðæåíèè òîãî, ÷òî "ìíîãî çàêîíîâ" ïîäòâåðæäàåò çàâèñèìîñòü îò ãëàâíîãî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ, ÿ âèæó îøèáêó:
îòêðûë ìíîãî çàêîíîâ, êîòîðûõ ðàíüøå â ïðèðîäå íå áûëî (òîëüêî -ûõ)
îòêðûë ìíîãî çàêîíîâ, êîòîðûå íèêîìó íå íóæíû (òîëüêî -å)
îòêðûë ìíîãî çàêîíîâ, êîòîðûõ íå çíàë Íüþòîí (òîëüêî -õ, âîïðåêè Âàøåìó óòâåðæäåíèþ, ÷òî âîçìîæíû îáà!)
Äëÿ ìåíÿ âàðèàíò "îòêðûë ìíîãî çàêîíîâ, êîòîðûå íå çíàë Íüþòîí" ñîâåðøåííî íåâîçìîæåí. Åñëè äëÿ êîãî-òî ýòî ïî-äðóãîìó, ïîäòâåðäèòå/îïðîâåðãíèòå!
(ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, "çàêîíû, êîòîðûå íå çíàë Íüþòîí" âîçìîæíî, õîòÿ íà ïèñüìå ÿ ñêîðåå âñåãî âûáåðó "êîòîðûõ" è çäåñü).
Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÿ óòâåðæäàþ, ÷òî âàðèàöèÿ â ïàäåæå "çàêîíû/çàêîíîâ" âëèÿåò, âîïðåêè Âàøåìó äîïóùåíèþ, íà âûáîð ïàäåæà "êîòîðûå/êîòîðûõ".  îðèãèíàëüíîì ïðåäëîæåíèè äåéñòâèòåëüíî ñóùåñòâóåò îáû÷íàÿ ïðîáëåìà ñ ïàäåæîì ïðè îòðèöàòåëüíîì ãëàãîëå ("íå çíàåò è íå ïðèçíàåò çàêîíû"/"íå çíàåò è íå ïðèçíà¸ò çàêîíîâ"), êîòîðàÿ òåì íå ìåíåå äëÿ ìåíÿ ðàçðåøàåòñÿ äîâîëüíî óáåäèòåëüíî â ñòîðîíó ðîäèòåëüíîãî ïàäåæà - "çàêîíîâ" (î òîì, ïî÷åìó, ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü îòäåëüíî; èãðàåò ëè ðîëü êîíüþíêöèÿ?). Íî ýòîò âûáîð, êîòîðûé â îðèãèíàëüíîì ïðåäëîæåíèè ñîîòâåòñòâóåò "êîòîðûõ", âñòóïàåò â êîíôëèêò ñ ôîðìîé "çàêîíû" îïðåäåëÿåìîãî ñëîâà â ãëàâíîì ïðåäëîæåíèè, è ýòîò êîíôëèêò ÿâëÿåòñÿ ãëàâíûì èñòî÷íèêîì ïðîáëåìû.
Òàêîâ ìîé àíàëèç, à òåïåðü, ïîæàëóéñòà, àòàêóéòå åãî ;)
Re: excuse my english
Date: 2002-01-03 10:35 pm (UTC)only gen is possible in
îòêðûë ìíîãî çàêîíîâ, êîòîðûõ íå çíàë Íüþòîí
-sorry. I usually dont pull examples out of my head, just for this reason!
but I do not agree with your analysis. Because apparently we have here "mnogo" which takes gen after it, and we may say that this conditions the gen of kotoryh, since the verb allows it. It's a sort of conditioning hierarchy, perhaps.
At this point allow me a small break- I will gather examples and come back to you with a clearer picture.
--Renee
Re: excuse my english
Date: 2002-01-04 01:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-01-06 01:37 am (UTC)âîîáùå, ïîíÿëà, ÷òî âàðèàíò "êîòîðûõ" îòäàåò êðèíîëèíàìè è êîðñåòàìè è "ãîñòèíîé ó..."