Have you ever heard words put in inappropriate cases? This is the sin of surzhik - a mixed speech of Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish words. This happens because the rules for declension differ in different languages.

To choose the correct case of nouns, you need to know what type they belong to.

Animate and inanimate nouns

Words used incorrectly hurt the ear. For their proper use, there are certain rules, which are not that complicated. Since ancient times, in Rus', living and nonliving things have been changed by case in different ways. When the language was systematized, it was determined that there are proper and common nouns, animate and inanimate. Moreover, it is not always possible to independently determine what type a particular word belongs to. The dead man is inanimate, has no soul, but the word is grammatically animated. But plants are alive - they grow, they breathe. But inanimate. Why?

There is one aspect of this issue that has its roots in mythology. In ancient times, people held different ideas about living and nonliving things. Hence many well-established expressions showing the inanimateness of the sun (it looks out, gets up, sets, wakes up, in fairy tales it is asked for advice, and it answers) and dolls (in games it eats, sleeps, walks, talks, cries). Previously, they were indeed considered alive and this was reflected in linguistic forms. The word “corpse” has always been considered inanimate, because under it only the shell of a creature is considered, but there is no personality. How can we identify animate and inanimate nouns?

Rule

Since living and nonliving things answer different questions, it is good to use this method. Then check the obtained result. We can then refine our study according to exceptions that are best remembered.

1. So, first we should find out who or what is in front of us. This way, in most cases, we can understand what type the word we need belongs to.

2. In the future, the plural of the desired word is put in the accusative case (for simplicity, it can be designated VP) and find out which case it coincides with. If with a nominative (IP) it is inanimate.

Toys.
Armchairs.
Games.
Noses.
Nicknames.

If with the genitive (RP) - animation.

Puppies.
Birdie.
Animals.
Chickens.
Friends.

This is often enough to identify animate and inanimate nouns. The rule has exceptions.

Living inanimate

These are dolls, Teddy bears, dogs, bunnies, robots and the like. That is, those toys with which actions are performed as if they were alive. The resulting word forms will look like this:

Dolls.
Bears.
Zaychikov.
Dogs.
Robots.

Some symbols in games are also considered animate. This should be remembered:

Kings.
Valtov.
Queen.

People who have died or perished are considered animate: suicide, deceased, deceased, deceased.

Suicide
Deceased.
Passed away.
Dead.

There are many such words, but they are all animated. When we are talking about the mortal coil (corpse, body, carrion, carcass) - it is already inanimate.

Fairy-tale and immaterial characters (angels, demons, nymphs) are also animated. There is a pattern: if in the minds of the people something is alive, in the declension of such a word VP = RP.

Living inanimate

A group, any set, a collection of people, animals or living beings are considered to be inanimate. This is a crowd, an army, a people, a herd, a flock, a host. It is correct to say: “I see crowds, armies, nations, herds, flocks, hosts.”

All plants and mushrooms are inanimate. They have long been viewed as food, and not as part of wildlife. It is interesting that some types of seafood (lobsters, oysters, lobsters) first appeared in Russia as exotic dishes. That's why in recipes they are used according to the inanimate principle: boil the squid and cut it into noodles.

What is not visible to the eye is considered inanimate.

These are microorganisms, viruses, embryos, yeast, bacteria. Although there are interesting exceptions here too. For example, the attitude towards the embryo changes when it becomes visible - in vitro.

When it is impossible to determine animate and inanimate nouns

Examples showing the impossibility of assigning a word to one division or another:

repair automation
see swordfish.

These words are not declined according to numbers. When changing by case, they have their own form of endings. Therefore they stand outside of animation.

Helping adjectives

Based on the accusative case form of concordant adjectives, animate and inanimate nouns are determined. Examples:

We saw a new student - we saw a new table.
Petted a beautiful puppy - petted a beautiful blouse.
If you get big calves, you get into big trouble.

First there is a phrase where the accusative case is equal to the genitive (VP = RP), and then to the nominative (IP).

These adjectives will make it easier to identify animate and inanimate nouns.

Own and common nouns

All proper nouns received such a name because they are unique in their kind. Usually these are names, but there can also be nicknames and nicknames. If there is a coincidence, it is rather nonsense. For such cases there is the word “namesake”, for example. Even if this is the nickname of an inanimate toy, it is still animate. There are also inanimate proper names. These are names given to an institution, work of art or composition. There are also geographical names.

Common nouns - from the Old Church Slavonic “named” (to call) - are the names of groups of objects or concepts.

The table will help you change them correctly by case.

Skills develop well when filling out such a table. You can fill it out by putting all words in the accusative case, although this is not necessary. You can simply divide the sheet into four parts and write down the proposed words in groups.

Special exercises will help you understand this topic even better.

Exercises

Exercises will help you consolidate skills on how to identify animate and inanimate nouns. You need to substitute the correct word, select the correct case, or check the literacy of the written phrase.

Exercise 1

Substitute the correct words in the following sentences.

Coming to school, students see (teachers, principal, new desks, posters, friends, duty officer, old doors, school crayons).
We purchased (songbirds, carousels, benches, visitors) for the city park.
Being late for work, I had to catch up (trolleybus, tram, taxi driver I knew).

Exercise 2

Choose the correct case in the following sentences.

We placed (the kittens) and in addition gave them (bags of food) for them.
Coming out into the clearing, we saw (boys and baskets of mushrooms).
At the zoo, keepers feed (the birds) and water (the trees).

Exercise 3

Give examples of animate and inanimate nouns that are suitable in the following cases:

He sits at the table... and dreams.
The doctors said that... he was no longer breathing.
Ours... completely crumbled.
How brightly this one burns... today.
The old one... completely fell apart.

Lesson

In order for students to remember the above rules well, the teacher can devote a lesson to animate and inanimate nouns. It is good to use a scheme indicating equality of cases.

Shower	Inanimate.
VP = RP	VP = IP

Recalling that the plural is being tested, as an exercise you can ask to name five animate and five inanimate nouns while looking at the picture. A photo of a puppy with a toy chicken in its teeth will do.

The resulting phrases will not always be correct, this is natural. But the teacher can highlight especially funny ones. This “by contradiction” method will help you remember the incorrect use of cases.

Examples of animate and inanimate nouns that are substituted for the missing words will help you understand the rule well. For this exercise, sentences with missing words are written out on a piece of paper in advance. In their place, you should insert one of the suggested words written on the board. The teacher makes sure that the students have different options: on one side of the board they are animated, on the other - not.

As one of the options, the following set of words can be used:

Suitable text for this exercise:

The weather was beautiful on the weekend. The guys ran out into the yard. (?) fed and dressed their (?). (?) were not attracted to such games, they launched (?) from the mountain. (?) and (?) made the old (?) happy. “Where else can you find such (?),” they said, and were in no hurry to call their (?) and (?) home. And the guys have already taken (?) and (?) and made a noisy (?).

The kids will really like this lesson. The main thing is to prepare visual material and diagrams well. Good luck!

Instructions

In Russian grammar, the category of animation does not always coincide with scientific ideas about living objects. There are many nouns that are considered inanimate in the language, but refer to phenomena inherent in living nature, and sometimes vice versa.

Animate nouns give names to living creatures that tend to move: for example, walk, run, jump. When used in speech, we rarely encounter neuter nouns that are classified as animate (these include the words “bogeyman,” “monster,” “animal,” “insect,” “child”). Animate nouns are usually nouns that are either feminine or masculine.

In difficult cases, the grammatical forms expressed in them help to distinguish whether nouns are animate or inanimate.

Animacy or inanimateness is recognized by a certain coincidence of the accusative case forms of the noun. In the plural, the forms of words coinciding with the genitive case speak of animation (“draw bears, butterflies”), and with the nominative - inanimateness (“watch cartoons, albums”). Similar coincidences can be observed in adjectives agreed with masculine nouns (“dear guest” – animate; “lay a carpet” – inanimate).

Animation will be indicated to you by constructions of nouns with a preposition with separate verbs denoting an action - a transition to another position: the endings of the nominative and accusative cases in the plural will be the same (“enroll as a student”, “become an artist”).

Please note that the categories of animate or inanimate tend to sometimes fluctuate. According to established modern norms of the Russian language, nouns naming microorganisms and some other names are defined as inanimate (“to describe bacteria”, but not “bacteria”; “to consider larvae”, but not “larvae”). An obsolete form of such nouns, speaking of animation, can be found in scientific literature. The proper meaning of the names of fish allows us to consider them animate, but these words, which have become the names of dishes, very often in use acquire the coinciding forms of the nominative and accusative cases, which is an indicator of inanimateness (for example, “to catch crayfish” (animated) - “to prepare smoked crayfish" (inanimate)). “Neptune”, “Mars”, “Pluto” are nouns that can be animate (names of Gods) and inanimate (names of planets).

The words “humanity” and “students”, which mean a collection of animate objects, are inanimate in grammar. And when declension of words such as “dead”, “dead”, “queen” (a piece in chess), “jack” (the name of one of the cards) one can discover the grammatical category of animation. The attitude towards animation can be said by considering the names of some fantastic creatures, which include “

Andrey NARUSHEVICH,
Taganrog

A few questions about the animate/inanimate category

Little is said about the category of animate/inanimate nouns in school textbooks of the Russian language, and yet it represents one of the most interesting linguistic phenomena. Let's try to answer some questions that arise when considering this category.

What is an “animate” and an “inanimate” object?

It is known that the classification of nouns as animate or inanimate is associated with the division by man of the surrounding world into living and inanimate. However, even V.V. Vinogradov noted the “mythological nature” of the terms “animate/inanimate”, since textbook well-known examples ( plant, dead person, doll, people etc. . ) demonstrate the discrepancy between the objective status of an object and its comprehension in language. There is an opinion that by animate in grammar we mean “active” objects identified with a person, to which are contrasted “inactive” and, therefore, inanimate objects 1. At the same time, the “activity/inactivity” sign does not fully explain why the words dead man, deceased are considered animate, and people, crowd, flock– to inanimate nouns. Apparently, the category of animate/inanimate reflects everyday ideas about living and inanimate things, i.e. a person’s subjective assessment of the objects of reality, which does not always coincide with the scientific picture of the world.

Of course, the “standard” of a living being for a person has always been the person himself. Any language stores “petrified” metaphors, showing that people from ancient times saw the world as anthropomorphic, described it in their own image and likeness: the sun is out, the river is running, the leg of a chair, the spout of a teapot etc. . Let us recall at least the anthropomorphic gods or characters of lower mythology. At the same time, life forms other than humans: some invertebrates, microorganisms, etc. are often ambiguously assessed by ordinary native speakers. For example, as a survey of informants showed, to nouns sea anemone, amoeba, ciliate, polyp, microbe, virus the question is regularly asked What? Obviously, in addition to signs of visible activity (movement, development, reproduction, etc.), the everyday concept of a living being (an “animate” object) also includes a sign of similarity to a person.

How is the animate/inanimate nature of a noun determined?

Traditionally, the coincidence of the forms of the accusative and genitive cases in the singular and plural of masculine nouns is considered as a grammatical indicator of animacy. (I see a man, a deer, friends, bears) and only in the plural for feminine and neuter nouns (I see women, animals). Accordingly, grammatical inanimateness is manifested in the coincidence of the accusative and nominative cases (I see a house, tables, streets, fields).

It should be noted that the grammatical opposition of nouns by animate/inanimate is expressed not only in the form of a specific case: the difference in the forms of nouns in the accusative case leads to a difference and opposition of paradigms in general. Masculine nouns have singular and plural paradigms on the basis of animate/inanimate, while feminine and neuter nouns have only plural paradigms, that is, each of the animate/inanimate categories has its own declension paradigm.

There is an opinion that the main means of expressing the animate/inanimate nature of a noun is the accusative case form of the agreed definition: “It is by the form of the agreed definition in the accusative case that the animate or inanimate nature of the noun in the linguistic sense of the word is determined” 2 . Obviously, this position requires clarification: the form of an adjective word should be considered as the main means of expressing animateness/inanimateness only in relation to the use of unchangeable words: I see beautiful cockatoo(V. = R.); I see beautiful coat(V. = I.). In other cases, the form of the adjectival word duplicates the meanings of case, number, gender and animate/inanimate nature of the main word - the noun.

The coincidence of case forms (V. = I. or V. = R.) in the declension of allied words of the adjectival structure (in a subordinate clause) can also serve as an indicator of animate/inanimate: These were books, which I knew(V. = I.); These were writers, which I knew(V. = R.).

Feminine and neuter nouns that appear only in the singular form (singularia tantum) do not have a grammatical indicator of animate/inanimate, since these words have an independent form of the accusative case that does not coincide with either the nominative or the genitive: catch swordfish, study cybernetics etc. Thus, the animate/inanimate nature of these nouns is not determined grammatically.

What is the fluctuating grammatical indicator of animate/inanimate?

Let's look at a few examples: And from now on the embryo is called fruit(I. Akimushkin) – I saw in a flask embryo Swirled like a horn(Yu. Arabov); Science microbiology studies various bacteria and viruses(N. Goldin) – Bacteria can be identified by morphological properties(A. Bykov); Getting married, woman carries away with you your dolls (I. Solomonik) – Before going to bed, you played in my office again. Feeding the dolls (L. Panteleev). As we see, the same words behave either as animate or as inanimate.

Variable forms of the accusative case of nouns germ, embryo, microbe, bacterium etc. are explained by the ambiguity in the assessment of the corresponding objects by speakers. Usually these forms of life are inaccessible to observation, which causes hesitation among native speakers in classifying these objects as living or nonliving.

Dolls are involved in playful (as well as magical) human activities. In children's games, dolls function as living beings. The dolls are bathed, combed, put to bed, that is, actions are performed on them that in other conditions are aimed only at living beings. Play activity creates conditions for understanding dolls as objects that are functionally similar to living things (functionally animate). At the same time, dolls remain inanimate objects. The combination of signs of living and inanimate causes fluctuations in the grammatical indicator of animate/inanimate. Some names of game pieces exhibit similar features: queen, ace, pawn etc.: I took from the table, as I remember now, ace of hearts and threw it up(M. Lermontov) – Having placed the cards, take all the aces, lying on top of the packs(Z. Ivanova).

People have long considered some animals primarily as food (cf. the modern word seafood). For example, lobsters, oysters, lobsters, as noted by V.A. Itskovich, “are not found alive in Central Russia and became known first as exotic dishes and only later as living creatures” 2. Apparently, nouns oyster, squid, lobster and others initially declined only according to the inanimate type, the appearance of the accusative case form, coinciding with the genitive form, is associated with the development of the meaning ‘living being’, later in relation to the meaning of ‘food’: Boil squid, cut into noodles(N. Golosova) – Squid is boiled in salt water(N. Akimova); Nearby fishermen brought to the city fish: in the spring - small anchovy, in the summer - ugly flounder, in the fall - mackerel, fat mullet and oysters (A. Kuprin) – Are you really eat oysters? (A. Chekhov) It is interesting that in the meaning of ‘food’, not only the names of exotic animals acquire grammatical inanimateness: Fat herring Fine soak, cut into fillets(M. Peterson); Processed pike perch being cut to pieces(V. Turygin).

Thus, fluctuations in the grammatical indicator of animate/inanimate are caused by the peculiarities of semantics, as well as the ambiguity in assessing an object as living or inanimate.

Why nouns dead man And dead man animated?

Man's understanding of living nature is inextricably linked with the concept of death. ‘Deceased’ is always ‘one who was alive’, who previously had life. In addition, it is no coincidence that folklore is replete with stories about the living dead. You can still find echoes of the ideas of our distant ancestors that the dead have a certain special form of life, as if a dead person is able to hear, think, and remember.

Nouns dead, deceased, departed and others denote deceased people, i.e. possess the attribute 'man' - the most important for the meaning of animation. Here's the word dead body means ‘the body of a deceased organism’, i.e. only a material shell (cf. expressions corpses of the dead, corpses of the dead). Apparently, this semantic difference explains the grammatical animation of the names of the dead and the inanimateness of the word corpse: How strong are all the stones in their callings, - When dead having covered guard (K. Sluchevsky); A convene I am those for whom I work, dead people Orthodox... - Cross yourself! Summon the dead for housewarming(A. Pushkin); Nastya only once, long before the war, had to see a drowned man (V. Rasputin); Teamsters throwing corpses on a sleigh with a wooden knock(A. Solzhenitsyn).

Why words people, crowd, flock inanimate?

The listed words denote a certain set of living objects - people or animals. This set is conceptualized as a single whole - a collection of living beings, and this collection is not equal to the simple sum of its components. For example, the attribute “set,” which expresses the idea of quantity in the concept of “people,” is combined in the concept of “people” with the idea of quality – “the totality of people in their specific interactions.” Thus, the common feature of the words of this group – ‘totality’ – turns out to be the leading one and forms the meaning of inanimateness. V.G. Gak connects the nouns in question with the category of collective (quasi-animate) object: “Between animate and inanimate objects there is an intermediate group of collective objects consisting of animate units. Words denoting such objects... can be conditionally called quasi-animate” 4. The grammatical generalization of semantics is expressed in the morphological indicator of inanimateness (V. = I.): I see crowds, peoples, flocks, herds etc.

Why are plant nouns inanimate?

In the linguistic picture of the world, plants, which are a qualitatively different form of life than animals and humans, are not perceived as living organisms. The ability to move independently has long been recognized as one of the characteristic features of living things. As Aristotle pointed out, “the beginning of movement arises within us from ourselves, even if nothing from outside has set us in motion. We do not see anything like this in inanimate [bodies], but they are always set in motion by something external, and a living being, as we say, moves itself” 5 . The inability of plant organisms to move independently, the absence of visible motor activity and a number of other signs lead to the fact that in the human mind plants, together with objects of inorganic nature, constitute a motionless, static part of the surrounding world. This is indicated by V.A. Itskovich: “...by living is meant an object capable of independent movement, so plants are classified as inanimate objects” 6. Thus, the predominance of inanimate signs in everyday concepts of plants, as well as the nature of human labor activity, which has long been widely using plants for a variety of purposes, has led to the fact that plants are in most cases perceived as inanimate objects.

How does the meaning of animate/inanimate manifest itself?

The sign 'living' ('non-living') can appear not only in the meanings of nouns, but also in the meanings of characteristic words. Indeed, the analysis showed that in language not only nouns, but also verbs and adjectives have the meaning of animate/inanimate. This is manifested in the fact that verbs and adjectives can denote attributes of objects that characterize these objects as living or nonliving. For example, the meaning of the verb read indicates that the action is performed by a person (person) and is directed at an inanimate object: read a book, newspaper, advertisement etc.

The existence of such semantic connections made it possible to construct a classification of verbs in the Russian language according to the presence in their meanings of an indication of the animate/inanimate nature of the subject and object of the action. This classification was developed by prof. L.D. Chesnokova 7. Thus, all verbs of the Russian language can be divided into the following groups:

1) animately marked – denote actions performed by living beings: breathe, dream, sleep and others;
2) inanimately marked – denote actions performed by inanimate objects: burn, crumble, evaporate etc. . ;
3) neutral – denote actions common to living and inanimate objects: stand, lie, fall etc. .

A similar division is observed among adjectives:

1) animately marked names, adjectives, denote characteristics of living beings: external characteristics, temperamental characteristics, volitional qualities, emotional, intellectual and physical properties, etc.: lean, long-legged, lop-eared, phlegmatic, hot-tempered, kind, evil, smart, persistent, blind, talented etc.;
2) inanimately marked adjectives denote attributes of inanimate objects (phenomena) - spatial and temporal qualities and relationships, perceptible properties and qualities of things, attributes in relation to the material of manufacture, etc.: liquid, rare, deep, spicy, sour, bitter, strong, thick, iron, glass, wood, swampy etc.;
3) neutral adjectives denote characteristics that can be attributed to both living beings and inanimate objects - the most general spatial characteristics, color characteristics, evaluative characteristics, belonging, etc.: left, right, high, small, heavy, white, red, good, mother's.

Thus, the animate/inanimate meaning of a noun is usually supported by animate- or inanimate-marked elements of the context. Otherwise, figurative meanings are updated, which ensures semantic agreement of words.

Thus, for animate nouns in combination with inanimate marked verbs, the most typical metonymic transfer is ‘work – author’: Then the worker began read Brockhaus (M. Bulgakov); But still Doderlein necessary view... Here he is – Doderlein. "Operative obstetrics"(M. Bulgakov).

For inanimate nouns, it is possible to transfer names from inanimate objects to living ones: Hungry Bursa was on the prowl through the streets of Kyiv and forced everyone to be careful(N. Gogol); Me saw off all warm and loving camera in full force, without party differences(E. Ginzburg); Prison doesn't like brave men(V. Shalamov). There are also many cases of occasional metonymic transfer, affecting the semantics of animate/inanimate substantive: - Fast! To the phone!.. Tube vibrated, trembled, choked with anxiety, didn't dare speak out fatal question. Only kept repeating with a questioning intonation: “Is that you? It's you?"(E. Ginzburg); Once in the hospital I heard: “From the seventh ward nasal boil is prescribed» (V. Levi).

Semantic mismatch in the animate/inanimate aspect can be overcome through metaphorical transfer of the meaning of the noun. An example is the combination of inanimate nouns with animate marked words, creating the artistic device of personification (personification): Sitting on the forehead of a short man, Pimple with envy looked on the foreheads of tall people and thought: “I wish I was in such a position!”(F. Krivin).

So, let's summarize. Animate and inanimate nouns denote not so much living and inanimate objects as objects conceptualized as living and nonliving. In addition, between the members of the opposition ‘thought of as living / thought of as inanimate’, there are a number of intermediate formations that combine the signs of living and inanimate, the presence of which is determined by associative mechanisms of thinking and other features of human mental activity, for example:

1) conceivable as being alive ( dead, deceased, departed etc.);
2) mentally imagined alive ( mermaid, goblin, cyborg etc.);
3) conceived as a semblance of a living thing ( doll, baby doll, jack, queen etc.);
4) conceived as a totality of living things ( people, crowd, flock, herd etc.).

Thus, the category of animate/inanimate nouns, like some other linguistic phenomena, reflects the anthropocentric attitude of human thinking, and the discrepancy between the linguistic picture of the world and scientific understanding is another manifestation of the subjective factor in language.

1 Stepanov Yu.S.. Fundamentals of general linguistics. M., 1975. P. 130.

2 Miloslavsky I.G.. Morphological categories of modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1981. P. 54.

3 Itskovich V.A.. Animated and inanimate nouns in the modern Russian language (norm and tendency) // Questions of linguistics. 1980, No. 4. P. 85.

4 Gak V.G. Verbal combinability and its reflection in dictionaries of verb control // Lexicology and lexicography / Under. ed. V.V. Morkovkina. M.: Russian. lang., 1972. P. 68.

5 Aristotle. Physics // Works in 4 volumes. M., 1981. T. 3. P. 226.

6 Itskovich V.A.. Animated and inanimate nouns in the modern Russian language (norm and tendency) // Questions of linguistics. 1980, No. 4. P. 96.

7 Chesnokova L.D.. Pronouns Who, What and the semantics of animation - inanimateness in the modern Russian language // Russian linguistics. Kyiv: Higher. school, 1987. Issue. 14. pp. 69–75.

It is known that the classification of nouns as animate or inanimate is associated with the division by man of the surrounding world into living and inanimate. However, even V.V. Vinogradov noted the “mythological nature” of the terms “animate/inanimate”, since textbook well-known examples ( plant, dead person, doll, people etc. . ) demonstrate the discrepancy between the objective status of an object and its comprehension in language. There is an opinion that animate in grammar refers to “active” objects identified with a person, to which “inactive” and, therefore, inanimate objects are contrasted 1 . At the same time, the “activity/inactivity” sign does not fully explain why the words dead man, deceased are considered animate, and people, crowd, flock – to inanimate nouns. Apparently, the category of animate/inanimate reflects everyday ideas about living and inanimate things, i.e. a person’s subjective assessment of the objects of reality, which does not always coincide with the scientific picture of the world.

How is the animate/inanimate nature of a noun determined?

There is an opinion that the main means of expressing the animate/inanimate nature of a noun is the accusative case form of the agreed definition: “It is by the form of the agreed definition in the accusative case that the animate or inanimate nature of the noun in the linguistic sense of the word is determined” 2 . Obviously, this position requires clarification: the form of an adjective word should be considered as the main means of expressing animateness/inanimateness only in relation to the use of unchangeable words: I see beautiful cockatoo(V. = R.); I see beautiful coat(V. = I.). In other cases, the form of the adjectival word duplicates the meanings of case, number, gender and animate/inanimate nature of the main word - the noun.

The coincidence of case forms (V. = I. or V. = R.) in the declension of allied words of the adjectival structure (in a subordinate clause) can also serve as an indicator of animate/inanimate: These werebooks , which I knew(V. = I.); These were writers , which I knew(V. = R.).