Talk:два

@Benwing2: Hi. There's a link issue at the declension table. It's linking to двумя́ but should be to двумя.

I've added inflection forms manually, please see, if you agree.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a manual declension table (at Template:ru-decl-num2), not a module issue. I've fixed it, but the table should be updated to use link templates instead of plain links with span tags. --WikiTiki89 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: Thanks. Sorry, I should've known better, since I edited Template:ru-decl-num2. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Plurality

@Benwing2, Voltaigne: Should the numerals have plurality in the gender parameter set as 'p'? It makes sense. They are not singular, even by the declension endings. "два" would belong to "dual", if it still existed. I already changed entries Ukrainian оби́два (obýdva) and Russian о́ба (óba) to plural. Apparently, it's not just for these two languages. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's probably just the header that needs updating. The declension table already show "plural". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest it might be excessive/superfluous to add a "pl" label to the headword of all plural numerals. "m/f/n" gender labels are provided where there are variant forms for different genders. We presumably add "pl" to the headwords of pluralia tantum nouns because this highlights to the reader that such nouns should be treated grammatically as plural and govern plural verbs even if their meanings are not obviously associated with plurality (e.g. две́рі (dvéri), дро́ва (dróva), usta, etc.). However, there can be instances (depending on a particular language's grammar rules) where a numeral that is plural in its meaning may not govern a plural verb. Voltaigne (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(Russian) "2/3/4 + adjective + feminine noun" in direct cases

@Atitarev @Helrasincke I have been doing some research on the Russian paucal construction, and have seen the following clash between two groups of sources. In question is "2/3/4 + adjective + feminine noun" in direct cases. The two groups agreed that when the noun has a syncretized gen.sg = nom.pl (like ра́мы), the intervening adjective takes either nom.pl or gen.pl (like две́ больши́е/больши́х ра́мы). However, the two groups differ on situations when the noun, while taking gen.sg (disregarding the only exception сторона́ for the moment), has a distinct nom.pl (like gen.sg горы́ ≠ nom.pl го́ры):

• Some sources (Koroleva 2005, Dunn 2009:180, Wade 2010:215, Pesetsky 2012:57) say that the adjective takes gen.pl, and nom.pl becomes marginal in this case. Thus, две́ больши́х горы́ is the norm while две́ больши́е горы́ is at best marginal.
• Some other sources (van Peteghem 2010:24, Nesset 2019), while noting the claim of the first group, point out that the adjective taking nom.pl should not be dismissed as marginal, and is fairly common according to statistics. To my surprise, my rough searches on Google and RNC seem to echo this view, with the adjectives in nom.pl still being predominant.

Then my questions are: Which view can be said to reflect the standard language more accurately? How could this discrepancy have come about? Shenyileirob (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shenyileirob, (Notifying Benwing2, Useigor, Fay Freak, ɶLerman, Tetromino, PUC, Brutal Russian, Helrasincke): : Interesting question.

Как правильно записать эти словосочетания on rus.stackexchange.com suggests to use Rosenthal/Rozental rule (#193)

• for feminine nouns normally, the adjective is in nom. pl. - две больши́е ко́мнаты, четы́ре фарфо́ровые ча́шки BUT if words differ in accents (го́ры – горы́, слёзы – слезы́) then gen. pl. is to be used instead: две высо́ких горы́, две кру́пных слезы́.

This rule sound natural but I didn't pay attention to it. две высо́ки́е горы́, две кру́пные слезы́ doesn't strike me as incorrect either.

The predicative may effect the adjective forms, even if the above is not applicable: Разы́граны три золоты́е меда́ли. – Разы́грано три золоты́х меда́ли.

There are more nuances there. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have not found anything to recommend. There are comments in the book Zaliznyak 2002, but this is not enough. Looks like a good topic for an article. ɶLerman (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev@ɶLerman According to Шаронов (2014: 143), this is a prevalent innovation deviating from normativists' Russian. Shenyileirob (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks good, but some examples sound normal to me, although he writes that this is not so. ɶLerman (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)