on indefinite pronouns in russian

On Indefinite Pronouns in RussianAuthor(s): Denis WardSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Oct., 1977), pp. 444-469Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4207534 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 04:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:39:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4207534?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SEER, Vol. LV, No. 4, October 1977.

On Indefinite Pronouns in Russian

DENIS WARD

IN Part I of this article,1 serving as a background to Part II, a brief survey of works on indefinite pronouns is followed by a discussion of the pronouns and pronominal adverbs2 formed with the particles -TO and -HH6ygjb. Verbal definitions of the meanings of these two sets of pronominal forms are proposed and comments on their contextual meanings made. This part ends with brief remarks on the negative pronouns HHKTO etc. and Heioro, etc. Part II of the article has as its theme the question whether there is any difference in meaning between pronominal forms with the particle -HH6yqb and those with the particle -in6o. A survey (a) of other works on this subject- some of which deny that there is a difference, while others assert that there is a difference-is followed by (b) the description and analysis of the results of an experiment designed to provide an answer to the question. Part II ends with (c) some tentative conclusions drawn from the analysis of the results of the experiment.

I The most satisfactory treatment of pronominal forms with the

particles -TO and -HH6yJb in general grammars of the Russian language is undoubtedly that to be found in A. V. Isacenko's grammar.3 Another general work, the purely practical guide of F. M. Borras and R. F. Christian,4 while having no theoretical pretensions, has acute observations on the subject of indefinite pronouns, backed by pertinent examples. 0. N. Seliverstova's work5 on certain Russian pronouns and their English equivalents has been concerned among other things with the indefinite pronouns of the two languages, the meanings being defined by means of a three-parameter componential analysis, and the definitions of the meanings of the indefinite pro-

Denis Ward is Professor of Russian at Edinburgh University. [This paper is to be presented to the VIIIth International Congress of Slavists, Zagreb, 1978.]

1 I wish to thank Dr J. Miller for comments on a draft of Part I of this article, and Dr Militsa Greene and Mrs G. A. Boldina for their comments on some examples in that same draft.

2 Hereafter, 'pronouns' or 'pronominal forms' will include such pronouns as KTO-TO,

'4To-HH6yAb, Kacori-JIH6o, etc., and such pronominal adverbs as rUe-To, KyAa-HH6yAE, etc. 3 A. V. Isacenko, Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart, Teil I-Formenlehre, Halle (Saale),

I968. 4 F. M. Borras and R. F. Christian, Russian Syntax, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1971. 5 0. N. Seliverstova, 'Opyt semanticeskogo analiza slov tipa vse I tipa kto-nibud" (Voprosy

jazykoznanija, XIII, 4, Moscow, I964, pp. 8o-90). See also her 'Semanticeskij analiz anglijskich slov some, any i ich proizvodnych i pravila perevoda etich slov na russkij jazyk' (Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta-filologija, furnalistika, Moscow, i965, I, pp. 53-64).



ON INDEFINITE PRONOUNS IN RUSSIAN 445

nouns of Russian in G. A. Bitechtina's very useful booklet6 appear to be derived from Seliverstova's work. A monograph devoted entirely to indefinite pronouns and adverbs has been written by Je. M. Galkina-Fedoruk,7 while several articles of varying degrees of merit, written during approximately the last two decades, have been devoted to the -TO and -HH6yJu pronouns. Among them are those of Istvan Pete, F. Sergejev, L. I. Gromakova-Syrkina (all of whom deal also with pronouns formed with the prefixed particle Koe-), Osten Dahl and R. Ruzicika.8

The articles by the two last-named authors are of most value to the reader who is seeking a deep understanding of the -To and -HH6y4b pronouns, since both authors very skilfully employ ideas from contemporary linguistics in their examination of the semantics of -TO

and -HH6yab. Moreover, Dahl's article is particularly interesting for the English-speaking student of Russian because the author is concerned throughout with the semantic correspondences between the -TO and -HH6yab series of pronouns of Russian and the 'some' and 'any' series of English.9 Following some recent trends in linguistic theory Dahl borrows the notion of 'performatives' and, from predicate logic, the concepts of a variable (x) and the existential quantifier (existential operator). These notions are used by Dahl in his descriptions of semantic structure. The concepts from predicate logic are used to express the information, as part of a semantic structure, that 'there exists at least one x such that . . .'. In the theory of performatives each semantic structure is conceived as containing a verb which indicates the function of the utterance corresponding to the surface sentence associated with the semantic structure. In certain types of sentences the performative verb actually appears in the surface structure and in the corresponding utterances. Simple examples of this are: 'I predict the early downfall of the Roman Empire', 'I declare the bazaar open', 'British Airways announce the departure of their flight BA I23 for Timbuctoo', 'British Rail apologize for the delay in the arrival of the io a.m. train from High Dudgeon'. In 'plain statements' the performative does not usually

6 G. A. Bitechtina, Upotreblenije mestoimenij, Moscow, I966. 7 Je. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, VyraenUe neopredeljonnosti v russkom jazyke neopredeljonnymi

mestoimenjami i narelijami, Moscow, I963. 8 Istvan Pete, 'Upotreblenije neopredeljonnych mestoimenij v sovremennom russkom

jazyke' (Russkij jazyk v Ikole, Moscow, 1957, 2, pp. I8-21); F. Sergejev, 'Znacenije i upotreblenije neopredeljonnych mestoimenij obrazovannych pri pomosci castic koe-, -to, -nibud' (-libo)' (Russkijjazyk v nacional'noj skole, Moscow, 1959, I, pp. 22-8); L. I. Groma- kova-Syrkina, 'Casticy -nibud', -libo, -to, koe- v russkom jazyke' (Russkj jazyk za rubezom, Moscow, I968, 4, pp. 87-90); Osten Dahl, 'Some Notes on Indefinites' (Language, 46, i, New York, 1970, pp. 33-41); R. Rfuiicka, 'Kto-to und kto-nibud" (Zeitschriftfiir Slawistik, XVIII, Berlin, 1973, pp. 705-36).

9 Very relevant here, though it treats only of English (with a brief final remark on Spanish), is R. Lakoff's 'Some reasons why there can't be any some-any rule' (Language, 45, 7, New York, I969, pp. 6o8-I5).



446 D. WARD

appear in the surface structure. In order to illustrate at one and the same time the application of the existential quantifier and the concept of performatives a paraphrase of an analysis of a simple Russian sentence in terms of semantic structure follows (note that it is the convention to write the performative in capital letters). Thus, the semantic structure of KTO-TO noeT is paraphrased as: 'I STATE to you that there exists an x (such that x is a person) and that that x sings'. Hopefully, it should be clear from this paraphrase what Dahl means when, in accounting for the choice between -TO

and -HH6yAb pronouns, he writes 'A variable, bound by an existential quantifier [='there exists an x'. D.W.] . . . that is the uppermost predicate in a sentence directly dominated by the predicate STATE, is realized as a mo- pronoun,' or, in an earlier formulation, 'A variable, bound by an existential quantifier that stands first in a declarative sentence, will be realized as a mo- pronoun'.10

Employing the same contemporary linguistic ideas and techniques as Dahl but penetrating the subject further, Ruzicka builds on the basis of Dahl's rule an impressively proportioned logical analysis of the meanings of the -TO and -HH6yab series of pronouns. Funda- mental to Rizvicka's view of the -TO and -HH6yRb series is the criterion of 'Objective Identification', by which he means that an object (person, thing, place, time, etc.) is or can be identified simply by its participation in an event or action, stressing that participation can be not only actual but also anticipated or planned.1" If this condition is fulfilled, then-where it is a matter of choosing between a -To and a -HH6yqb pronoun- a -TO pronoun is used, and a -HH6ygb pronoun cannot be used. Ruzicka's interpretation, he says, is fully in accord with ('steht ganz im Einklang mit') 0. N. Seliverstova's criterion for the use of a member of the -TO series of pronouns, namely that the participant (person, thing, etc.) in the action has been 'selected' ('yqacTHHK Bbi6paH).12

Even with the rules formulated by Dahl and Ruzicvka, there still remain-as both authors are well aware-a few problems in the choice between a member of the -TO series and a member of the -H46y,ab series of pronouns. One of these, which is treated or touched upon also by others, is that connected with the modalities of 'possibility', 'necessity' and 'probability'. As regards the last, for example, it is well known that in the context of an adverb such as HaBepHoe 'probably' both -To pronouns and -H46yqb pronouns occur. Bitechtina has the following contrastive examples: OH HaKJ1OHMICS H, HaBepHOe,

10 Dahl, 'Some Notes on Indefinites', p. 35. 11 'Unter objektiver Identifikation soll verstanden werden, dass ein Objekt durch seine

blosse Teilnahme an einem Ereignis, einer Handlung, oder kraft einer antizipierenden Vereinbarung oder Planung identifiziert wird' (Ruzicka, 'Kto-to und kto-nibud", p. 710).

12 ibid., p. 711.




RTO-TO no0HALi and OH HaKJO0HHJICq H, HaBepHOe, 'TO-HH6ygb nogHxsiJ,13

both of which would of course be rendered in English as 'He bent down and probably picked something up.' The choice between -TO and -HH6yqib here has been described as being de- pendent on the degree of probability or the degree of certainty in the speaker's mind, which statement, vague though it is, is probably the most one can hope to achieve for practical purposes. The Dahi- Ruzicka rule will account for the occurrence of 'ITO TO in the first of the two sentences quoted above, since the semantic structure of the second part of the sentence could be paraphrased as: 'I STATE to you that there exists an x (such that x is a thing) and that he probably picked up that x'.

A performative PREDICT, proposed by some linguists,14 will account not only for the future tense in 'She will marry somebody' but also for the otherwise puzzling future tense in 'He will be at the station by now'. In the latter sentence there is clearly no idea of futurity-it is a statement of probability and the gloss would be: 'I PREDICT that he is at the station by now'. If the semantic structure of OHa BbIHAeT 3aMY) 3a Koro-HH6yab is paraphrased as: 'I PRE- DICT that there exists an x (such that x is a person) and that she marries x', then Dahl's rule is not satisfied: the existential quantifier is not 'the uppermost predicate in a sentence directly dominated by the predicate STATE' and therefore the variable cannot be realized as a -TO pronoun. Perhaps the performative PREDICT should be invoked to explain the occurrence of mTo-HH6yai, in OH, HaBepHoe, q-TO- HH6y,b io HO,HJI which would then be glossed as: CI PREDICT that there exists an x (such that x is a thing) and that he has picked it up'. The probability adverb HaBepHoe could then be argued to be a surface realization of the 'prediction'. In this connection, notice that the Russian equivalent of 'He will be at the station by now' has no future tense but is likely to have a probability adverb-OH, HaBepHoe (or 4OAWHO 66ITb), yxe Ha CTaHgHH.15 It seems at least possible that an approach to sentence semantics on the lines briefly sketched and illustrated above may succeed in accounting for the choice between -TO and -HH6yba in a context of probability.

The formulation from Dahl cited above and modified by Ruzic'ka is not a definition but a rule intended to generate a -TO pronoun or

13 Bitechtina, 'Upotreblenije mestoirnenij', p. io. 14 J. Boyd and J. P. Thorne, 'The Semantics of Modal Verbs' (Journal of Linguistics, 5,

s, Cambridge, I969, PP. 57-74). 15 Dahl argues on similar lines, with regard to the performative PREDICT, on p. 36

of his article. In an unpublished discussion with J. Miller I have suggested a performative SURMISE (which can appear in surface structure and corresponding utterance) to account for MTo-HH6y,1E in, for example, OH, HaBepHoe, HTO-HH6yaib nO)iHRHj (= 'I SUR- MISE that there exists an x (such that x is a thing) and that he has picked it up') but Miller has countered that 'surmising' and 'stating that probably' are logically equivalent and that nothing is to be gained from postulating a performative SURMISE.



448 D. WARD

a -HH6yAb pronoun in the surface structure of Russian sentences. In paraphrasing the semantic structure of some sentences an approach has been made towards verbal definitions of the meanings of -To and -HH6yxqb forms. Since the definitions to be put forward are intended to be as general as possible and since they are definitions relevant to pronouns, which do not name, the symbol x which occurs in them signifies (unnamed) person or thing or quality (property) or time or place or manner or quantity or reason, depending on which interrogative-relative word the particles are attached to. Thus, the meaning of -TO forms is defined as:

It is asserted that there exists an x such that that x can or does participate in the event and the identity of x is not known to the speaker.

The last part of this definition is intended to account for the difference between -TO forms and Koe- forms (icoe-KTo, Koe-MTo, etc.), the definition of the latter differing from the definition of the former only in this last phrase. For Koe- forms it would read 'and the identity of x is known to the speaker'. It is true that -TO forms sometimes occur where Koe- forms might be expected, as in 51 KynJIO Te6e 'ITO-TO,

when clearly the speaker must know what it is he is going to buy (for otherwise he would say AK KYIIO Te6e MTO-HH6yab.-See below). Ruzvicka, extending an argument of Vsevolodova and Judina, ex- presses the view that this use of -TO forms instead of Koe- forms in colloquial Russian represents the deliberate exploitation of the language's semantic resources: the conscious use of a form (-TO)

implying that the speaker cannot identify an item known to exist, and this in a speech-situation when it is evident that the speaker can identify the item, serves to heighten the listener's curiosity or interest. Thus, argues Ruzic'ka, it is not right to claim that the differential feature of Koe- and -TO forms-'Ability/Inability to identify'-is being eroded or lost.16 The Koe- forms, however, appear to be in some slight 'disarray', and certainly they differ from -TO forms in one other element of their meaning. Some sources gloss Koe- forms, without mentioning the feature 'known to speaker' ('Ability to identify'), as having the feature 'severality'," while others attribute

16 Ruii'cka, op. cit., p. 728. On the other hand, J. Miller has argued in a private discussion that, if this use of -TO instead of Koe- occurs only in colloquial Ruissian, then the choice (in colloquial Russian) would seem to be only between -To and -HH6y4a. Hence, if x exists, whether or not the speaker knows what it is, he cannot use -HH6yAb but must use -TO, 'and from this flows the heightened interest as an accidental concomitant' in circumstances where the speaker clearly does know what x is. I find this argument more con- vincing, for it seems unlikely that a speaker would use a -TO form if in the same register he normally has woe- forms,-and how, in fact does the use of a -TO form instead of a ioe- form then evoke heightened interest ?

17 Ugakov, for instance, glosses icoe-rAe as 'B HeKOTOPb6X (o6b6qHo HeMHOrHx) MeCTaX'; KOe-KTo as 'KaRHe-TO, HeKOTOpmbe (HeMHorme) nKIO,H'; and KOe-qTo as 'HeMHOroe, HeqTO,

HeKOTOpbMC (HeMHorHe) BeUH'. D. N. Usakov, Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka, vol. i, Moscow, I935.




both features to them, giving two separate glosses, i.e. attributing two sub-meanings to at least some of the xoe- forms."8 The 'severality' feature can be seen in, for example, Koe-KTO H3 6.lHxaiHAMMx pOAHb6X

eiwe OCTaBaJIHCb (L. Tolstoj) and-A H13 HaI1HX C KeM BCTpeTHJICI?... -143 HaIuInx... KOe-KOrO H3 KOMaHaHpOB pOT (V. Nekrasov). The adverb Koe-rae seems regularly to mean 'in several places', 'here and there', as in BiiepeaH 6bijia nycTbIH5I, Ino KOTOpOH KOe-rAe ueBeiJIHJlCb

KYHKH HaIHiHx pa3ie3AHbIX Ka3aKOB (L. Tolstoj) and . . . HO 3eCC6 Bce xce Koe-rUe CBeTHJIHCCb OKHa (V. Aksjonov). When the feature 'known to speaker' is present, then the feature 'severality' is absent, e.g. [IocJIe3aBTpa JlejiHH61I HMeHHHbI, A HO30By Koe-Koro, 1 eC)eJIH OH He rIOHMeT, 4TO OH AOjDKeH CaeCjaTb, TO y)e 3T0 6yaeT Moe ae.ro (L. Tol- stoj), and HeT, YK BaM nOHeBojie npHaeTCs CMOTpeTb KOH Ha MTO CKB03b

naJibimi (A. Ostrovskij), though occasionally both meanings seem to co-occur, as in A Ai H3 TeX, KTO CHHTaeT, MTO Koe-KorO HanpaCHO

BbI6IYCT1JJIH (S. Aljosin) 'But I am one of those who think it was a mistake to release certain people [who shall be nameless, though I know who they are]'. These remarks on the feature 'severality/ non- severality' of Koe-19 lead to the second comment on the definition of -TO pronouns. In at least the first three examples quoted above -TO

forms could replace the Koe- forms-and there would then be no feature 'severality' (and in the first Tolstoj example the verb would have to be changed to singular): in the first two sentences only one person would be implied, and in the third sentence only one place. Thus the words 'an x' in the definition proposed above are to be taken to have the implication 'one and the same x', even if the action is a repeated action. This is not to say that plural forms with the particle -TO do not occur, for of course they do (KaKiwe-To, etc.), but that -TO forms carry a 'non-distributive' implication. Thus, in the situation described by Kaxabme aBe MHHYTbI aBePb OTKpBbIiaiaCb H 6bIZo B14AHO, 'TO TaM cHAeAH xaKHe-TO CTyaeHTbI it is one and the same

18 Thus, in the four-volume Academy dictionary, one finds on the one hand Koe-rae - 'B HeKOTOpblX MeCTaX, Koe-Korga -HHorua, H3peAuKa', but on the other hand Koe-KTO -

'HeICOTOpbIe (HeMHorHe) JIIOAH' and 'HeKTO (KorO He XOTAT Ha3blBaTb)', KOe-KyAa -'B HeKoTopbIe mecTa and 'B HeKOTOpoe MeCTO (KOTopoe He XOTAT Ha3bIBaTb)', KOe-qTO -

6HeqTO, HeMHoroe; HeKoTopbIe (HeMHorHe) BeiLH' and "TO-TO (Kacorl-Jn. npeaMeT, l)aKT, KOTOphl}i He XOTBT Ha3BaTb)'. Slovar' russkogojazyka, ed. M. P. Aleksejev, S. G. Barchudarov, et al., vol. 2, Moscow, 1958.

19 Variation in the meaning of Koe- and its exclusion from certain registers ('styles') are not entirely surprising. The systems of pronouns are in constant flux. J. Veyrenc (see below) points out that an older system of indefinites (HeCKTo/KTo) has been largely sup- planted by the modern system (-To/-HH6ylaE), while V. N. Migirin shows that the complement of pronouns goes on being expanded, empty cells in a 'grid' of pronouns being filled by new creations. ('Opyt postrojenija klassifikacij, prognozirujuscich razvitije mestoimenij i slovoobrazovatel'nych paradigm' (Filologi1eskiye nauki, I5, 3 (75), I973, pp. 68-75)). Other writers have made similar observations-for example A. V. Isacenko, who adduces an entire list of 'secondary' indefinite pronouns, which 'express the finest nuances of meaning' (op. cit., pp. 502-4. See also his 'O sintaksiceskoj prirode mestoimenij', in Problemy sovremennojfilologii, Moscow, I965, pp. I59-66).



450 D. WARD

class or set of students sitting there, that class being defined by an actually existing, unvarying and unnamed quality or property, and this latter being expressed by the pronominal stem KaK- modified by the particle -TO.

The verbal definition of the -HH6yat forms proposed here is:

It is not asserted that there exists an x such that that x can or does participate in the event.20

(In this definition the final part of the definition of -To-'and the identity of x is not known to the speaker'-is superfluous, for if the speaker is not asserting that an x exists then the question whether or not any possibly existing x is known to the speaker is irrelevant.) If we now ask in Russian 'Did anybody ring?' then the choice must be KTo-HH6yJm for it cannot be asserted that x exists, since the existence or non-existence of x is precisely the point of the enquiry, hence 3BOHHJI KTo-Hi6yau6? Dahl cites a much rarer KTO-TO no3BOHHJI? and, quite rightly, implies by a preceding remark that the two sentences would have different structural descriptions.21 The definition of -TO proposed above accounts for the possible occurrence of -TO forms in such yes/no questions. The English equivalent of KTO-TO no3BOHHAI? would be 'Did somebody ring?' or even 'Who was that who rang?' since the particle -TO means, briefly, 'exists' and therefore the full implication of the Russian sentence, and for that matter the English sentence, is: 'I know somebody rang and I ask you to confirm this'. Both the Russian and the English questions here are akin to Latin questions with nonne, expecting the answer 'Yes', whereas 3BOHHJI KTO-HH6yqb? and 'Did anybody ring?' or 'Has anybody rung?' are akin to Latin questions with the postfixed particle -ne, prepared for the answer 'Yes' or 'No'.

The occurrence of-HH6yai, forms in the context of a future tense far outweighs the occurrence of-TO forms in the same context, for it will usually be the case that, while the performance of the action or the occurrence of the event is predicted, the x which participates in tile action or event has not yet been 'chosen', cannot, as it were, be chosen in advance, and therefore it cannot be asserted that an x exists. Hence 1 KyHJiiO Te6e x{TO-HH6yab, OH noeqeT Ha .ieTO KyIaa- HH6y,Rb B qepeBHio, etc. Similarly, with the imperative it is not normally possible to predict that there will in fact exist an x which

20 This is of course not the same as 'It is asserted that there is not an x, etc.' (see below). 21 Dahl, op. cit., p. 38. The two native speakers named in n. i rejected KTO-TO no3BOHHJI?

in favour of KTO-TO 3BOHHJI? and added that in the circumstances described one would be more likely to ask simply KTO 3BOHHJ? However, to maintain the parallel between Dahl's 'semantic structure' treatment and my 'definition' treatment, I shall retain Dahl's example.




participates in the action or event, and therefore the assertion that an x exists cannot be made.22 Hence CiaoHlTe HaM xMTo-HH6yqE,

JJO3OBHTe Koro-HH6Y,4b Ha nOMOLb, etc. In the light of the proposed verbal definitions of -TO and -HH6yab

forms, the choice between -TO and -HH6yab in the context of probability can be explained as follows. If OH HaBePHOe 'qTO-TO noaHAu is glossed as 'I STATE that x exists and that he picked up x', then it is clear that an assertion that x exists is being made-hence the choice of -TO. If on the other hand, employing the performative PREDICT or the postulated performative SURMISE,23 we gloss a sentence as 'I PREDICT/SURMISE that x exists, etc.' then clearly no assertion is being made that x exists now, and the choice will be -H46yRb - Off,

HaBepHoe, WTo-HH6yab noHHiAJ

The occurrence of -TO in the example above-KaKamIe IBe

MHHyTbl ... cHAenH xaKHe-To CTyaeHTbI was said to be a result of the fact that 'an x' in the definition of -TO iS to be read as 'one and the same x'. Seliverstova quotes24 from Turgenev a sentence expressing a not dissimilar situation- EBepb B rOCTHHyio 6bIa OTBOpeHa, H TaM Bcerua KTo-HH6y,ab caeJI. The person in the sitting-room is not one and the same on each occasion and hence it cannot be asserted that on each occasion an x (one and the same x) existed and participated in the event: the choice therefore has to be KTO-HH6yub and not KTO-TO. In this connection Rziicika cites25 two interesting pairs of contrastive examples from Vsevolodova and Judina:

1. (a) Y nOCTeJiH 60rbHorO Bcer,ga CHJLHT KaKOll-TO TOBapHI.

(b) Y niOCTeim 60JmbHorO Bcerja CH,94T KaKOHA-HM6Yab TOBaPHLU. 2. (a) AHj4perl IIOCTOSHHO HaCBHCTbIBaeT KaKOH-TO MOTHB.

(b) AHapeii IIOCTOAHHO HaCBHCTbIBaeT KaKOH4-HH6yq MOTHB.

In sentences (a) the same friend/motif participates in each occurrence of the event: it is asserted that there exists an unspecified defining property which does not change from occurrence to occurrence. In sentences (b) no such assertion is made: the friend/motif changes from occurrence to occurrence. RhviZka also quotes26 from the same source AeBymKa qaCTO 3Bana Koro-HH6yQEh Ha HOMOLub and adds a remark to the effect that if the girl always called the same person to help hnen Koro-HH6yab would have to be changed to Koro-TO. Once again, the cited sentence contains no assertion of the existence of one and the same x. Dahl too quotes a pair of sentences relevant here: Bce nxJoH 'IqTaIOT ITO-TO and Bce jUoJaH IHTaOT 'ITO-HH6ygjb.27 The first sentence asserts that one and the same x exists-all people are

22 Cf. Rziicka, op. cit., p. 714. 23 See n. I5. 24 Seliverstova, 'Opyt . . .', p. 85.

25 op. cit., p. 732. 26 op. cit., p. 73 I . 27 op. cit. p- 35-



452 D. WARD

reading the same thing, while the second does not make this assertion-each person is reading something different.

For converse reasons to those argued above one cannot say *KaKoe YTpO OH IIpHHOCHJI KaKyLo-HH6yRb rialiKy ra3eT nor *KaxabIiH )eHb OH HpHHOCHA KaKy1o-HH6yAb oxanxy XBOpOCTa,28 since all bun- dles of newspapers and all armfuls of brushwood have much the same appearance-the defining property, though unnamed, does not change. The pronoun KaKylo-To, instead of KaKyLO-HH6yab, in these two sentences would mean that one and the same bundle of newspapers or armful of brushwood was brought on each occasion- 'there exists an x, an unspecified defining property, which is one and the same on each occasion'. Without an indefinite pronoun in these two sentences the sameness v. variety of the newspapers/brushwood is then unmarked, but the context of situation, the absence of KaKylo-To and the imperfective aspect (though not this last alone) make it likely that it was not indeed the same bundle or armful on each occasion.

It may be that the two further meanings of KaKoH-HH6yRb, namely 'approximate quantity' and 'insignificant, worthless', are derived from the basic meaning by a natural semantic progression, indeed it is difficult to see how this could be otherwise. Thus, in B KaKHX-HH6yRb

aeCATH KHnloMeTpax, for example, it is not being asserted that there definitely exists a precise quantity of ten. The pejorative meaning of KaKoiH-HH6yab may arise directly from the basic meaning through some progression as: 'it is not asserted that an x exists-*it is immaterial what x is-*x can be any old thing--x is insignificant, worthless'. Alternatively, the pejorative meaning can be envisaged as arising indirectly through the 'approximate quantity' meaning in contexts where the quantity is obviously insignificant, as in BcerO KaKHe-HH6yRb HATb py6ineH-. Then the possible semantic progression would be: 'approximate quantity-five rubles ("some five rubles")--a not very big amount--a not very significant amount-- an insignificant, worthless, paltry amount'. A natural semantic progression similar to the first proposed above for KaKoHA-HH6yaJb =

'insignificant, worthless' can be envisaged leading from the basic meaning of KaK-HH6yaET to the pejorative 'carelessly', thus: 'it is not asserted that a particular manner exists--it is immaterial what the manner is--it can be any old way--carelessly, any old how'. All these matters require historical investigation.

The definition of -HH6yRb proposed above, containing, as it does, a negative ('It is not asserted, etc.'), is of course not identical with that of the negative pronouns formed with the prefix HH-. The defi-

28 The first 'prohibited' sentence is quoted from Bitechtina, op. cit., p. 9, the second from Seliverstova, 'Opyt. . .', p. 85.




nition of the latter must also contain a negative but its place in the definition (effectively its scope) is different:

It is asserted that there is not an x such that x participates in the event.

The HH- pronouns have in their turn to be distinguished from the negative pronouns with stressed He- (HeKoro, Hetero, HerUe, HeyJaa, etc.) and these in their turn cannot be defined without reference to their 'positive counterparts', which are simply Koro..., xITO..., rae, Kyaa, etc. These pronouns, as is well known, can occur in sentences with or without an overt 'logical subject', which, if it does occur, is in the dative case - ECTb O MqM rOBOpHTb; EMy eCTC Koro Io6HTb;

MHe eCTb meM IOXBaJHTbCA; HeKoro CHpOCHTb; EMY HeKyaa 6bi.nO HaTH;

HeKy,aa 6binO HRTH.

A. V. Isacenko has shown such sentences as MHe HeKyaa (6buIo)

HIaTH and MHe He C KeM IOCOBeTOBaTbCA to be derivable by transfor- mations from interrogative infinitive sentences, respectively Kyyaa MHe

(6bIJo) HaTH and C KcM MHe 6bIZo noCOBeTOBaTbCs.29 This interpretation, he says, explains why there are no nominatives *HeKTO, *HeCITO

corresponding to the genitival-accusatives HeKoro, Heqero. Isacenko, however, is not concerned here with the positive counterparts of such sentences as MHe HeCKyaa (6buIo) HaTH and MHe He c iKM nocoBeToBaTbCS. As the starting-point for the derivation of both the positive and negative sentences of the type under discussion two remarks of Isacenko's occurring a page earlier will be quoted:

CM6.CAI 1H?H4HHTI4BHMIX TpaHC4)OpMauHH COCTOHT, OMeBHX4HO, B flpH-

4axie )aHHOMy BbICKa3bIBaHHI0 MoaaJIbHbIX OTTeHKOB,

and

06Iq3aTeJ6bHbM YCJIOBHeM HHMHHHTHBHOA TpaHC4OpMaLUIH ABJIqeTCS

HaJIHWIH B HCXOAHOM npeCJiOeHHH JIH'HOrO Cy61beKTa.

If we now take a sentence which will appear in surface form as Kyaa AI Hay? (N.B. with a personal subject) and transform it to Kyga MHe H,aTH? a modality has been added which can be rendered in English translation as 'Where am I to go?' or 'Where can I go?' By the application of Isacenko's rule there can be derived from this He Kcya MHe HaTH, by the addition of He '(is-) not', so that the whole sentence might be glossed in English as 'Is-not place-to-which I am to go/I can go'. It is to be observed that it is not HeT 'there is not' which is added but He, originating at this stage of derivation as the equivalent of the logical 'it is not the case that', negating the assertion '(there is) place-to-which I can go'. Further rules generate the

29 A. V. Isacenko, 'O sintaksiceskoj prirode mestoimenij', p. I65.



454 D. WARD

normal Russian surface form MHe HeKyaa HaTH. The positive correspondent is derived by adding ecTb to iyga MHe HaTH, and here ecTb is used in the sense of 'emphatic is'. Thus an inelegant version of the Russian surface sentence MHe eCTb KyJa HaTH iS 'Is place-to- which I am to go/I can go'.

If we now look at the derivation, however crudely expressed, of both Emy eCTb Koro rno6HTb and Emy HeKoro mno6HTb, then it will become apparent why there occur no nominatives corresponding to Koro, Heicoro in these sentences (or to nero, Heliero in similar sentences). Thus, Koro OH Jno6IT -- Koro emy JIw6HTb -* ECTb icoro

emy Iuo6HTb -- EMy eCTb Koro .Tno6HTb//... -> He Koro eMy no6MTb -*

EMy HeKoro InoT6H. At no stage in derivation is a form finally leading to (he)Koro the subject of a verb. As Isacenko points out, with a negated predicate the direct object expressed by a pronoun is in the genitive case. Hence such a sentence as MHe Hewero aesaTb is derived in the following way: 'ITO X ge.iaio -* '-TO MHe ae.TiaTb -s He 'ITO MHe IeCJaTb -* He lero MHe aeJiaTb -* MHe Heqero aejiaTb. The dative pronoun can be deleted in the surface sentence and frequently is, if it is clear from the co-text or the context of situation who the (deep) subject is-and it will usually be first person singular or plural. There is of course an accusative case corresponding to the genitival-accusative (He)tIero but occurring only in prepositional phrases, as in ECTb Ha 'ITO xKaJIOBaTbcS and He Ha 'TO )aIJIBaTbCS (where 'ITO is not the direct object of a negated predicate). As Isacenko is at pains to emphasize throughout his article, some apparently complex morphological problems with regard to some pronouns are resolved by a syntactic approach.

II (a) The pronouns and pronominal adverbs formed with the particle -JIH6o constitute an exactly parallel series to those formed with the particle -HH6yab. In many, if not most relevant works emanating from the Soviet Union the -IHH6o forms are equated in meaning with the -HH6yab forms. In the four-volume Academy dictionary, for instance, KTO-JIH6o is glossed as 'To We, 'ITO KTO-HH6yxab' and other members of the -JnH6o series are glossed in a corresponding way, except that KaK-JIH6o and KaKOA-J1H60 are said to be equivalent respectively to KaK-HH6yab and KaKOH-HH6yab 'in the first meaning' of the latter pair. Hence KaK-JIH6o does not, according to this dictionary, have the meanings 'HeaocTaTo'qHo XOpOmo, Koe-KaK, He6peXHo' and 'KOIra-HH6Yab B 6yayiueM', nor does KaKoH4-JIH60 have the meanings He CTOAIHH BHHMaHIHA, He3HatiHTeJIbHbIH, HMHTO)KHbII' and 'npH6sIHxca-




IOIIHHCSA K KaKoMy-n. [NB!] KoINecTBy, He ripeBbliuaioLH A KaKoe-I. [NB!] KOJIHqeCTBo'. The seventeen-volume Academy dictionary30 either states that -.i6o forms are the same as -HH6yab forms or glosses parallel forms in an identical way. There is one partial exception to this. Koraa-HH6ya, is glossed as 'B KaKoe-IiH60 BpeMA (oU6MHo OTHOCAiueeCA K Heonpeae.eHHoMy 6yayweMy)', whereas Korga- .TH6o is glossed as 'B KaKoe-HH6yab BpeMs, oTHocsAweecsA K IpOIJIOMY Hri 6yayiueMy'. This distinction may become significant in the light of what follows in later sections of Part II of this article.

The Academy grammar3l makes no distinction between the -HH6yQEb series and the -nI6o series nor do such works devoted specifically to pronouns as those referred to in Part I. Occasionally a stylistic differentiation of the -JIH6o series from the -HH6yab series is drawn, or appears to be drawn. A. N. Gvozdev, for example, writes that Koe-'ITo, KOe-KTO, qTo-TO, KTO-To are associated with colloquial language ('c pa3rOBopHOH peqbio cBA3aHbI'), whereas 'ITo-JIH60, KTo-JIH60, He'ITo, HeKTo are associated with bookish language ('c KHH)XHoH')32-

a statement which, at least in part, is a little breath-taking. J. Veyrenc observes that every member of the -rim6o series is

marked as 'bookish' in Usakov's dictionary ('ou' chacun des termes en -libo est accompagn6 de la mention knizn.').33 This statement of Veyrenc's needs a little amplification, for Koraa-JIH6o is not specifically marked by Usakov as bookish but as 'ycTap.' (ycTapejioe 'obsolete'), which-surprising though it is-could be taken to imply also 'bookish', since obsolete lexical items often-though of course by no means always-have a bookish ring when resurrected. It is worth observing too that in UIsakov's dictionary KaK-HH6yaEb is the only member of the -HH6yaE series marked as 'pa3r.' (pa3roBopHoe 'colloquial'), which is just as surprising as the 'obsoleteness' of Kora-JUH6o.34 What is more important, however, is that just over half of Usakov's entire complement of members of the -JIH6o series are not glossed in terms of the -HH6yaL series. Usakov's -HH6y4b series does not include qeiH-HH6yab and 3aqeM-HH6yab, while his -JIH6o series does not include qeA-.m6o, 3aqeM-JiH60 and CKoJlbK0-JIH6o. Of the nine members which his -nH6o series thus has, four (Koraa-/

30 Slovar' sovremennogo .usskogo literaturnogo jazyka, ed. V. I. (,ernygov et al., Moscow- Leningrad, 1950-65.

31 Grammatika russkogo jazyka, ed. V. V. Vinogradov, et al., Moscow, I960. 32 A. N. Gvozdev, Ocerki po stilistike russkogo jazyka, Moscow, 1955, p. I96. 33Jacques Veyrenc, 'Kto-nibud' et kto-libo, formes concurrentes?' (Revue des itudes

slaves, 40, Paris, I964, pp. 224-33). 31 Lexicographers not infrequently have difficulties in deciding how to categorize a

word in terms of its register. The more register-terms they have, the more likely are difficulties to arise, it seems. Usakov uses 226 abbreviations, of which I02 could be con- sidered to be register-terms. For a brief discussion of the register-terms in Usakov's dictionary see pp. 177-8 of D. Ward, 'Diachrony and Register: An Aspect of the Study of Contemporary Language' (Forumfor Modern Language Studies, VII, 2, St Andrews, I97I, pp. 170-82).



456 D. WARD

oTKy,qa-/no,qeMy-/To-JMI6o) are glossed as exact equivalents to the corresponding members of the -H46ymb series ('TO we, WTo...

-HH6y,4b'). The other five (rxe-/IaK-/KaKo-H-/KTo-/Kyxa-JH6o) are all glossed by means of the adverb yroRHo (e.g. KaK-JIH6o - KaK yroRHo, KaKIHM yroRHo o6pa3oM; KTo-JIH6o - KaKoH yroXHo, io6oiA, BCfIKHH

IeJIOBeK). Nowhere does the adverb yroRHo occur in the glosses to the -HH6y,ab series. Seven of them (rle-/Koraa-/KTo-/Kyaa-/oTKyaa-/nooqeMy-/ tITo-HH6y)Rb) are glossed by means of KaKoI1-HH6yqb (e.g. KTo-HH6yab -

KaKOIH-HHI6yJb qenOBeK; Korla-HH6yaj, - B KaKoe-HH66yJ4b BpeMI),

while KaKoHi-HH6yab itself is glossed with the aid of the adverb 6e3pa3JIHxHo (KaKOi-HH6yAb - 6e3pa3JrnAIHo, KaKOIH HmeHHO), which adverb occurs in additional glosses to KTo-Hi46yRb and 'ITo-HH6yqb.35 It is true that there is not complete uniformity in the glosses to either the -HH6yJb or the -JIH6o series, but there is sufficient uniformity within each set of glosses and a striking enough difference between the two sets of glosses to warrant if not an assertion then at least the question whether Usakov intended to convey that the members of the -InH6o series are not equivalent in meaning to the corresponding members of the -HH6yRb series.

In descriptive or practical works on Russian, other than dictionaries, it is almost always non-native speakers who draw a distinction between -HH6yXjb and -rnH6o; their judgment therefore, in spite of many years' experience of the language, may be thought to be questionable. In this respect M. V. Trofimov, a native speaker, is exceptional in writing 'Each of these particles is used to express a progressive degree of indefiniteness; thus -TO iS less indefinite, -HH6yJab more indefinite, and -rnI6o still more so'.36 Andre Mazon distinguishes thus: 'KTO-HH6yab-"un quelconque", KTo-JIH6o- "le premier venu" and -InH6o, particule indiquant un libre choix, dans rge-JIH6o . . "oiu il plaira, n'importe ou" . . . et . . . Koraa-nH6o "quand il plaira, n'importe quand"; HH6yb . .. indiquant l'ignorance et l'indifference, dans KaK-HH6yaE, "de quelque maniere que ce soit, d'une facon quelconque", rue-Hn6yRb . . . "quelque part, en un lieu quelconque", etc.'37 Borras and Christian mention a stylistic

35 Kax-HH16yz6 and cKOJEbKO-HH6yAib are glossed respectively as KClHM 6b1 TO HH 66In0 o6pa3oM and HeKOTopoe KoJIHqeCTBO, HeMHOrO.

36 M. V. Trofimov, Handbook of Russian, II, Accidence and Syntax, Manchester, 1939, p. I I 4. Trofimov (I 884-1948) was born in Archangel and graduated at St Petersburg. He was Assistant Lecturer in Russian at Liverpool University from 1910 to I 914, Univer- sity Reader in Russian at King's College, London, from 1914 to I919, and Professor of Russian at Manchester University from 1919 to 1945. (I am indebted for this bio- graphical information to Professor John Dumbreck.)

37 A. Mazon, Grammaire de la langue russe, Paris, 1945, pp. 63 and I27. Cf. his words on -TO-'particule d'indetermination indiquant l'ignorance, mais non l'indiff6rence: KaK-TO "d'une certaine maniere", rAe-TO . . . "en un certain endroit"... zoraa-To "A un certain moment, un jour au temps jadis"', ibid., p. 127.



ON INDEFINITE PRONOUNS IN RUSSIAN 457 difference between the two particles-'The suffix -IiH6o is con- sidered rather more formal or "bookish" than -HH6yai'-and add a remark which clearly indicates that they consider that there is a difference in meaning-'[-JIH6o] may also imply an even greater degree of indefiniteness-anyone, anything at all you like'.38 The Bulgarian I. Cervenkova, in an article devoted only tO -HH6yqb and -JIH6o,39 also maintains that there is not only a stylistic difference between the -HH6yqib and -rii6o series of pronouns but also a semantic difference-'Ho Me)KAY HHMH eCTb pa3JHIqHe. OHO He TOJIbKO

CTHJJHCTH'{eCKOe, HO H ceMaHTHIeCKOe'. She takes as examples only the pairs KTO-HH6yqb/-JIH6o, tITO-HH6yab/-JIH6o and KaKOA-HH6yJ4b/-JIH6o. Quotation of her remarks on the first of these pairs, on page I 5 of her aiticle, will be adequate for present purposes. With KTO-HH6yJ4b 'HMeeTC5 B BHAY JIHUO ... HO KaKOe HMeHHO - He BbIACHAeTCA, H HeT

HeO6XoaHMOCTH BbIACHITb 3TO', whereas: '[KTo-.n160] ymK3bIBaeT Ha TO,

MTO o6-beKT MOxeT 6bITb CaMbIM pa3Hoo6pa3HbIM. <<He xo'Iy o6ujeTb Koro-JiH6o0 )-T.e. He XOtly o6fteTb Koro 6b1 TO HH 6bIJo, jno6oro, BCAiKoro

l{eJIOBeKa, KaKHM 6bI OH HH 6bIu.' The most precise expression of a difference between -HH6ymb and

-JIH6o is to be found in Veyrenc's article. The -TO pronouns, expressing the fact that x exists, though its identity is unknown,40 he calls indetermine reel ('actual indefinite'), while the -HH6yqb pronouns, expressing the fact that the existence of x is not certain,41 are called inditermine' virtuel ('potential indefinite', 'hypothetical indefinite'). On examining seventy-five sentences culled from Usakov and the four-volume Academy dictionary-fifty-eight with-HH6yat pronouns and seventeen with -.nH6o pronouns-he finds the former in four types of context. They are: (a) interrogative, (b) imperative, (c) subordinate clauses containing the particle 6bi, and (d) clauses expressing a hypothesis ('EcJim...'). In all these types of context the participation in the event of a person, thing, etc., expressed by -H46yab, is envisaged as potential. The situation expressed is a hypothetical one.42 Veyrenc finds members of the -JIU60 series in only two types of context: (a) negative (which he will later qualify as 'corresponding to the emphatic use of the French semi-negative') and (b) the second term of a comparison (e.g. '[....ayqueJ, em KTO- 3160 opyroii'). In these two types of context the participation in the

38 Borras and Christian, Russian Syntax, p. 304. 39 I. Cervenkova, 'Neopredeljonnyje mestoimenija na -nibud' i -libo' (Russkij jazyk v

skole, Moscow, I 96 I, 2, pp. I 4-20). 40 'Kto-to ("quelqu'un qui existe sans que l'on sache qui")'. Veyrenc, op. cit., p. 225. 41 'Kto-nibud' ("quelqu'un dont 1'existence meme n'est pas certaine")', loc. cit. 42 'Ces quatre types de contextes oui entre l'indicateur -nibud' ont en commun le trait

d'exprimer une situation oii se trouve envisage l'un quelconque des termes de la serie virtuelle en tant qu'il est appeli a se realiser . .. la situation est une situation d'hypothise': op. cit., p. 227.



458 D. WARD

event of a person, thing, etc., expressed by -AH6o, is envisaged as excluded. The situation is one of antithesis.43

In order to test the opinion that there is a difference between -HH6y,ai and -sIi6o, and at the same time to verify Veyrenc's conclusions on the nature of that difference, a small experiment with native informants was carried out. The nature of that experiment and an analysis of the results obtained form the subject of the next sub-section.

II (b) The corpus for the experiment consisted of seventy-five sentences containing either a -HH6yqE or a -IiH6o form, culled from the dictionaries of Aleksejev-Barchudarov and Usakov, and other sources, and including eleven sentences from Veyrenc's article. Some of the sentences were slightly abbreviated. The number of each of the various -HH6yA)6 forms and -in6o forms can be calculated from the corpus appended to this article. Nine informants received the corpus. They were all mature native speakers who had received and were themselves teaching in higher education. The informants were asked to indicate, by means of written symbols and without con- sulting the investigator, whether a -HH6yab form occurring in a sentence from the corpus could be replaced by a -.nH6o form and vice versa. They were given five categories of answers,44 each with its own symbol, and each sentence was to be marked with one of the five symbols. The categories, with the symbols provided (here en- closed in brackets) were: i . ( + ) replacement [sci. of a member of one series by the corresponding member of the other series] is possible; 2. ( + +) replacement is essential; 3. ( -) replacement is impossible; 4.(o) replacement is possible but undesirable; 5.(*) replacement is possible but the sense is changed. The purpose of categories i ( + ) and 3(-), into which the bulk of the answers fell, is self-evident. Category 2(+ +) was to allow for the possibility that some informant felt that a sentence was wrong with the form given. Cate- gory 5(*) was to provide for the possibility that some informant felt very strongly that he/she must indicate that in some way commutation resulted in a change of sense, in spite of the basic instruc-

43 'Ces deux types de contexte oii entre l'indicateur -libo ont en commun le trait d'exprimer une situation oii se trouvent envisages tous les termes de la serie virtuelle en tant que leur realisation est exclue . . . la situation est ici une situation d'antithe'se': op. cit., p. 228.

44 A pilot experiment had been conducted earlier with a shorter corpus of 29 examples. The pilot informant, Professor L. S. Barchudarov, was simply asked to indicate whether commutation was possible, without a change of meaning, or impossible. Professor Barchudarov suggested a third type of answer a-rd added remarks which led to my adding two more types of answer, making five in all. I am very much indebted to Professor Barchudarov for his kind help and advice. It goes without saying that I am entirely responsible for settling on the five categories of answer, for the manner in which the experiment was conducted and of course for the analysis and interpretation of the results.




tion (see below). The purpose of category 4(o) and to some extent also an additional purpose of the categories just commented on, will become apparent from what follows.

The informants were asked to decide whether commutation was possible without a change of meaning. They were asked furthermore to discount any possible stylistic differentiation-they were not to take into account the 'bookishness' (KHH)KHOcT) or 'colloquiality' (pa3roBopHocM) of any particular form. To state the obvious, if stylistic factors are discounted and a sentence S can be converted into sentence S' without a change in meaning merely by substituting a member of the -Hy6yJ4b series for a member of the -JIH6o series or vice versa, then the corresponding members of the two series are apparently synonymous. It could be, however, that they are not synonymous but are very close in meaning, that the context allows either (either is compatible with the context) and that an informant is either unaware of a difference in meaning or considers it so slight as to be insignificant. This suggestion is made on the grounds that some informants might allow commutation where others did not, as in fact turned out to be the case quite frequently. Here of course there is the possibility that idiolectal factors play a role, i.e. that for some informants the two series are synonymous while for others they are not. In the latter case then there is obviously at least some semantic differentiation among some speakers of Russian. Con- versely, if a commutation is not allowed, then either the two series are not synonymous or they are synonymous but there are contextual restrictions on the occurrence of the two series. Once again, variation across the informants will be significant. It was hoped that by taking into account as many factors as feasible it would be possible to reach at least a tentative confirmation or refutation of the con- tention that there is a semantic difference between the two series of pronouns.

In the answers to the questionnaire there were a very few cases where alternatives were given, and these are included in the figures which follow. The numerical distribution of the categories is given in Table I, where the heading -JIH6o, for instance, means 'sentences containing a -Jul60 form', such that the number 67 in the first line is to be read as meaning 'there were 67 instances where the informants indicated the possibility of converting -ni6o to -H46yJ4b without changing the meaning'.

The answers of informant E, who assigned all except two sentences to (+), suggest the possibility of an idiolect very different in respect of these pronouns from the idiolects of all the other informants. If this informant's answers are removed then the distribution of the categories becomes as shown in Table ia.



460 D. WARD

TABLE x

CATEGORY -rnH6o -HH6yab TOTAL

I (+) 67 234 301 2(+ +) 26 9 35 3(-) 30 200 230 4(0) I5 82 97 5(*) 7 4 I

145 529 674

TABLE ia

CATEGORY -inH6o -HH6yjiu, TOTAL

I (+) 52 176 228 2(+ +) 26 9 35 3(-) 30 200 230 4(0) 14 8i 95 5(*) 7 4 I

129 470 599

The sentences with -HH6yRb forms in the corpus heavily out- number those with -jin6o forms, by a factor of 3.68 to i. The figures in Tables i and i a for the two columns headed -.i1160 and -HH6y4b are now converted to percentages to facilitate a general comparison of the respective commutability of -AH6o and -HH6yqT6. In Table 2,

which shows this conversion, the figure 46.2I in the first line, for instance, is read as '46.21 % of the I45 assignments of -IH6o to all the five categories in Table i are assignments to Category (+)'. The corresponding percentage for Table ia is then given after an oblique stroke. The meaning of the figures given in the last column, under X ('times'), becomes apparent in the text which follows.

TABLE 2

-ZU6o -HH6yai X CATEGORY I/Ia i/ia i/ia

I (+) 46.2 I /40.31 44.23/37.45 0 1 .04/0 I .08

2(+ +) 17.93/20.i6 01.70/01-91 Io.55/io.55 3 ( - ) 20.69/23.26 37.8 I /42*55 oI.83/01.83 4(0) Io.34/1o.85 15.50/17.23 01.50/01.59 5(*) 04.83/05-43 00.76/oo.85 o6.36/o6.39

IOO /IOO I00/99.99



ON INDEFINITE PRONOUNS IN RUSSIAN 46I

From this table, particularly the last column, it is apparent (i)

that the possibility of converting -rIH6o to -HH6ya6 is slightly greater than the converse possibility; (2) that it was felt essential to convert -JIH6o to -HH6yab almost eleven times more often than vice versa; (3) that the impossibility of converting -HH6yai to -rnH6o was nearly twice as frequent as vice versa; (4) that the possibility but undesir- ability of converting -HH6yaJt tO -JUI6o was approximately one and a half times as great as vice versa; and (5) that the possibility of converting -JIH6o to -HH6yab but with a change of sense was just over six times more frequent than vice versa. The general conclusion from all this is that it seems to be easier for -JIH6o to be converted to -HH6yab than vice versa. Always supposing that the informants had successfully suppressed any concept of stylistic differentiation, the data suggest that, if there is a difference in meaning, then -HH6yab is less restricted or less 'narrow' than -Jmn6o, which in its turn suggests that -iUH6o is marked in some respect in which -HH6yab is unmarked.

In the following, more detailed analysis of the data the responses of informant E are not included. If it is borne in mind that E marked all sentences as (+) except 36 and 41, which she marked as (o), then it is relatively easy to modify the following data, if necessary. 'Negative' responses are dealt with first. No sentence with -.nH6o was categorized as (-) by all informants, but sentence 5o was marked (-) by all except informant F, who marked it (+). Table 3 gives data for -HH6yab sentences which evoked entirely or preponderantly negative responses.

TABLE 3

RESPONSES

SENTENCE (-) (other)

17, 19, 20, 21, x 8 - 22, 29 14, i8, 28, 31 X 7 I8, 28, 31, 58, 75: Ix(?) [informant F] 40, 58, 6I, 75 14, 40, 6i :ix(+)J

It can be seen from the appended corpus that in the sentences in this table there is a preponderance of 'future context'-either future tense (I9, 20, 28, 29, 31) or implied future action (17, I8, 2I, 22). Moreover, in none of these sentences is there an implication that there exists a range or set of x's from which a selection is or can be made.

Table 4(a) gives data for -iH6o sentences which evoked entirely or preponderantly 'positive' responses, i.e. (+) or (+ +), while Table 4(b) gives corresponding data for -HH6yah sentences.



462 D. WARD

TABLE 4(a)

RESPONSES

SENTENCE (+) (+ +) (other)

9 7 - (*) [informant F] i6 7 7 35 7 I 42 4 4 49 7 I 68 7 7

Informant F added to her response to sentence 9 a ditto to her remark to sentence 8 that replacement by -HH6yaEb would narrow the meaning by giving it a more concrete sense ('3aMeHa timo-Hu6y6b cyxaeT InoHaTHe, p1HaaeT 6onee KOHKpeTHbII CMbICJI JaeHCTBH10'). If the sentences in this table are examined from the point of view of range or set, introduced above, it will be seen that 68 does not imply the existence of a range, nor is such an implication likely for 9, 35 and 42. Without a wider context it is difficult to say whether 49 implies a range or not, though the likelihood is that it does not (however, cf. 44 below). As for i 6, with its seven ( + + ) to one ( + ), it looks very much as though the conversion should be to rIio6oH-.

TABLE 4(b)

RESPONSES

SENTENCE (+) (+ +) (other)

34 6 2 _ 44 6 I (-)

46 8 - _ 47 7 - (o) 5I 8 - - 54 6 I (o) 64 8 - _ 65 8 - _ 73 7 - (-)

Thus, nine -HH6yaiu sentences are marked as entirely or preponderantly convertible. It is interesting to compare 44 and 49, since both begin nlocoBeTyHTecb c KeM-... Sentence 49, with -Jiu6o, was marked as convertible by all informants, sentence 44, with -HH6ym,, as convertible by all but one informant. This might suggest convertibility either way in the context of an imperative but there are seven other sentences with -HH6yab in such a context (3, IO, I7, 27, 39, 59 and 62), none with preponderantly (+) responses. The categories assigned to them are shown in the following table, 4(b)i.

Both in 46 and 5 i a range appears to be clearly implied by the construction H3+ gen. In the three other sentences with this construction and -HH6yab forms there is not such clearly marked con-




TABLE 4(b)i

RESPONSES

Sentence (+) (-) (o)

3 2 3 3 IO I 6 I I7 - 8 - [cf. Table 3] 27 - 3 5 39 6 - 2

59 2 0/3 3/6 [three informants gave alternatives]

62 4 2 2

vertibility to -.Io60, the figures for the categories being: 38 - 3x( +), 4x(-), lx(o); 39-6x(+), 2x(o); 45-6x(+), lx(-), lx(o). The one sentence with -rn6o and this construction (50, see above) has lx( +) and 7x(-). If -HH6yqb and -jin6o have different meanings and if the existence of a range or set from which selection is made is relevant, then it may be that when the existence of a range is clearly marked by the construction 13 +gen. there is free choice between -HH6yqb and -rni6o.46 In 73 no range can be implied and in all the other sentences mentioned in this paragraph the situation is such that there might be a range or there might not.

In order to seek a possible back-up for the emerging hypothesis, the informants' categories for the remaining sentences in the corpus were now submitted to a second count in which sentences assigned six (+) were counted as (+), those with six (-) were counted as (-). Moreover, in calculating these majorities account was taken of the fact that Category 4(0) is ambivalent. It is both positive- admitting the possibility of conversion-and negative-saying that the conversion is undesirable. On this count therefore the Category 4(o) answers were allowed to gravitate to Category i(+) or Cate- gory 3(-), whichever was already predominant.

Three sentences with -JIn6o now enter Category 3(-): 7, 36 and 43. Ihese three sentences are the only ones where -IiH6o figures in the second term of a comparison. To some extent therefore the answers correspond to the interpretation placed by Veyrenc on the meaning of -JIH6o in a comparative context. Two of these sentences -7 and 43-clearly imply the existence of a range from which selection is made. There is apparently no such clear implication in sentence 36, but it will be argued below, in the conclusions, that this sentence does in fact imply the existence of a set.

45 Miller points out that the construction iz+gen. always means that a set definitely exists-'a sequence Quantifier + iz + Noun can refer only to some or each of a definite set of objects' (J. Miller, 'Towards an Account of Quantifiers in Russian', unpublished paper).



464 D. WARD

The -HH6yAx sentences categorized as (-) are now joined by eleven more-2, 3, io0 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 48, 63 and 72. One of these sentences, no. 2, shows that 'distributive' function of -HH6ygb in an iterative context which was illustrated in Part I by ABepb B

rOCTHHyio 6bIJIa OTBOpeHa, H TaM scerga KTo-HH6y)ab cnaeji and other sentences. Sentence 27 occupies a unique position in having the largest number of (o) of the entire corpus: five informants assigned (o), while three informants assigned (-). For about half the sentences in this paragraph, it could be maintained that no range is implied, while for the other half it could be maintained either that it is doubtful whether a range is implied or that it is uncertain.

In the second count three sentences with -wH6o, 67, 7I and 74, now become convertible, and so do sixteen sentences with -HH6y4b -I, 4, 5, 6) 13, 32, 37, 39, 41, 45, 52, 53, 55, 57, 6o and 62. One of the five informants who assigned (+ +) to sentence 7I added a note that the conversion should be to -TO. Three of the sentences with -HH6yJAb in the corpus-4I, 52 and 53-show the distributive function of -HH6yab. For some of the sentences there is the possibility that a range is implied but it is not certain.

Eleven sentences remained after the second count. The distribution to them of the five categories is shown in Table 5. All except 8 and 66 have -HH6yRb in the corpus.

TABLE 5

SENTENCE (+) (+ +) (-) (o) (*) 8 4/I - 3 I/41

II 5 _ 3 _ _ L2 3 I 3 I _ I5 - 4 3 _2

30 5 - 3 - - 38 3 - 4 I _ 56 3 - 3 2 _ 59 2 - 3/0 3/6 _1 66 3 - 4 - _2 69 4 - 4 -

70 4 - 4 - -

1 Three informants gave alternative answers. In the case of 8 it seems likely that they intended (*).

2 One informant did not assign a category.

On a simple majority count sentences i i and 30, neither of which implies a range, would gravitate to 'convertible'. If (o) is allowed to gravitate to (+) or (-), as in the second count, then I2 gravitates to (+), while 38 gravitates to (-). Sentence I 2 certainly implies no range, and 38 has the H3+gen. construction, discussed above. The remaining sentences either have even distribution of



ON INDEFINITE PRONOUNS IN RUSSIAN 465 two categories (69 and 70) or a rather ragged distribution of categories, but none of them imply the existence of a range or set. Sentence 8 is the one to which informant F attached the note about 'narrowing the sense' (see above). In spite of the four (+ +) responses to sentence I5 it is clear that replacement of -HH6yab by -Ji16o is prohibited by the informants, since the four informants who assigned (+ +) added a note that -HH6yaE should be replaced here by -TO. This sentence should therefore be added to Table 3 above. In noting a replacement by -TO the informants were probably in- fluenced by a mixture of factors. KaKoH--TO, while still meaning 'x exists, etc.' can also have a pejorative nuance: Usakov adduces 'C KaiKHM-TO iInaJioiiaeM apyw6y BegeT'. With proper names-and common nouns-KaKoo-TO is used in the sense of 'sort of', 'like a'. Usakov cites 'X.TecTaKoB KaKoH-To!' while Aleksejev-Barchudarov cite 'io-BaiLeMy, PyaHH - TapTIO KaKOH-TO', as well as 'He aO)KEb, a .JIHBeH6 KaKoH-To'. However, KaKOH-HH6yXb has a stronger pejorative meaning than KaiKo4-To and can certainly modify proper names in this meaning. The full meaning of the phrase aIn? KaKOH-TO AKYJIbKH here is: 'for a certain Akul'ka, who definitely exists but whom I don't know [and (?) really wouldn't care to]', while the full meaning of the phrase which actually occurs in Cechov's story (IIJeecKas cnuWiKa) is: 'for some wretched Akul'ka or other [if you can imagine such a person existing]'.46

II(c) The conclusion towards which the data produced by the experiment have been pointing is that there is some difference (other than stylistic) between -HH6yab and -.In6o and that -JIH6o presupposes or implies the existence of a set. On this basis a tentative verbal definition of -iH6o would be:

There exists or can exist a set of x's but it is not asserted that there exists a particular member of that set such that that member can or does participate in the event.

This definition and its implications appear to be at variance with Veyrenc's remarks on the difference between -HH6y4b and -JIH6o. While admitting a lexical difference between the two (kto-nibud' 'qui que ce soit', kto-libo 'qui vous plaira'), Veyrenc proposes that there are syntactical restrictions on the two sets of forms (see above). In two of the three sentences of the corpus in which -.uH6o figures

46 Some sources which in general equate -nu6o forms with -HH6yAE forms point out specifically that KaKOf-nH60 does not have the pejorative meaning ('insignificant', 'worthless') which KaKo!!-HH6y;xb can have.



466 D. WARD

in a comparison (7 and 36) there is a majority of informants (five) in favour of non-convertibility to -HH6yqib, while for one of the sentences (43) two informants register non-convertibility, five assign category (4) and one category (5). On the appearance of -JIH6o in comparisons then the data support Veyrenc by and large. As for the negative context in which -JIH6o appears, the data for the three relevant sentences in the corpus (8, 66 and 74), all taken from Veyrenc's article, do not give such clear-cut support for Veyrenc. Conversely, however, sentence 49 has -JIH6o in an imperative context and sentence 9 has -.Iii6o in the context of ecJi[-in both of which contexts Veyrenc would expect to find -HH6yqib-and to both sentences seven informants assigned category (i). There is support here, therefore, for Veyrenc's opinion.

In fact the discrepancy between the definitions proposed above and Veyrenc's contextual restrictions is spurious: the contextual restrictions arise from the meanings proposed. Let us take only the relevant part of one of Veyrenc's supplementary examples from learned writings of-mnH6o in a negative context-'...He ceA3bIBajIocb... c KaKiMH-J160... 3agaxiaMH...' 'n'e tait point liee . . . a aucun prob- leme'. If, says Veyrenc, this were changed to '...He cBA3bIBanocb...

HH c KaKHMH... 3aqaqaMH' then the translation would be 'elle n'etait liee . . . a aucun problkme' and the 'emphatic negation' would be lost. The version with HH C KaKHMH simply states that there existed no problems with which etc. The version with c KaKHM4-JU160 implies the existence of a set the members of which could participate but at the same time states that no member of the set did participate, i.e. although there might well be a whole series of problems, yet none of them arose. Hence the emphatic negative function of -JIm6o forms. Sentences 7, 36 and 43, have -Jim6o forms in a comparison and are taken from Veyrenc's article, the first and last being slightly abbreviated. A comparison implies a negation, for to say 'A is happier than B' is the same as to say 'B is not as happy as A'. Moreover, the second term of a comparison must be a set, be it only a set of one. To say, re-quoting a sentence which Veyrenc quotes from Makarov's dictionary, OH cIaCTJIHBee, leM KTo-JIH6o is to say 'there is a set of persons (with whom comparison might be made) but there is not a member of that set who is as happy as he is'. Indeed, the implication may even be that there is a set of happy persons but not one of them is as happy as he is. This argument becomes firmer on the basis of the three examples in the corpus, all of which refer to the past. The full implication of 43 is 'there existed a set of persons who had come to understand the essence of art well but no member of that set had come to understand it as well as he already had'; of 7-'there is a set



ON INDEFINTIE PRONOUNS IN RUSSIAN 467

of wars which occurred in the past and which were wars of manpower reserves but no member of that set was as much a war of man-power reserves as is this war'; and of 36-'there was formerly a set of occasions when he looked at his men attentively but not on one of those occasions did he look at his men as attentively (as on this occasion)'.

The replacement of -JIH6o by -HH6yab is in general less restricted than the converse replacement, according to the data obtained from the experiment. The -HH6yab forms leave the existence of a set unmarked, and their higher frequency in comparison with -JIn6o forms may be due to the fact that they are unmarked, in contrast to -JIH6o forms, and therefore less restricted. It may be the close semantic proximity of -HH6yab and -JIH6o which leads to ease of interchange in some circumstances and to the statement that they are indeed synonymous. It should be emphasized in conclusion that what has been advanced here is in the nature of a hypothesis and at the same time admitted that in all probablility only a more sophisticated experiment or investigation of another sort could support or refute the hypothesis.

CORPUS (Sentences containing -JIH6o forms are marked with an asterisk)

(xaiwoll-) 1. A peIIIHJI Ha 6y aywHii roa BbirIHcaTb KaKoii-HH6yJab JIHTepa-

TypHO-XyAO)KeCTBeHHb1M IypHaJi

2. Y Hee B KOMHaTe B Ba3eB cer,a CTOAJHi KaKHe-HH6ygb UBeTbI. 3. KYIIHTe KaKHX-HH6yxab LUBeTOB.

4. 51 OteHb XOtIy KYHHTb KaKY1O-HH6yJab KaPTHHY 3TOrO XyaO)KHHKa.

5. A1 Hageioci6 nocnyiimaT KaKyio-HH6yas onepy B BOJbTOM

TeaTpe. 6. ECJIH OH H06bIBaeT B TeaTpe H inocnyIuIaeT KaKyKO-HH6YJ1b

onepy, IIOTOM OH BCe BPeM5 6yaeT rOBOPHTb 0 Herl.

*7. 3Ta Bo0Ha, 60onbie HeM caKa5l-JIH6o BOrHa B ripOIIJIOM- BOIIHa pe3epBOB Jlo1,CKHX.

*8. TbI He cnoco6eH gekcTBoBaTb H3 KaKHx-1JH60 JIHHbIx nio6yw-

JgeHHfl.

*9. ECJIH IIpOH3HOCHIH KaKoe-,nH6o cy)KaeHHe... TO OHO 6bIno...

AeCJ1HO.

10. CnoiiTe HaM KaKOiO-HH6yab poMaHc! 11. He npoxogwio 1lO'TH J4H5, tiTo6 (OH) He npHHec KaKorO-HH6yx4b

nO,aapKa. 12. CHa'aJIa A He n1oHHMan, IeM OTJiM4aeTCA TaHra OT KaKOrO-

HH6ygb o6b6cHoBeHHoro iieca. 13. OH HiueT KaKOii-HH6yxab pa6oTbI. 14. JIhOJgH 6brnH BOBce He nipocToro aecATxa, He xaKHe-HH6yaEb

MY)CHKH XyTOpSHCKHe.

15. OH OTBepr ee nio6oBb ,4J1A KaKOi-H46yJab AKyIIbKH. * 16. 3TO MOWKHO KYHHTb B KaKOM-JIH6o Mara3HHe.



468 D. WARD

(KaK-) 17. YrOBopH ero KaK-HH6yaE. 18. Haigo KaK-HHGygb pa3sX3aTbC71 C ,JIoJIraMH. 19. Hwqero, q KaK-HH6yEb C 3THM CIIPaBIOCb.

20. 51 K BaM KaK-H46YgAb 3aitgy. 21. (FopbKElHi) HMamepeBanCA KaK-HH6yAb H34AaTb riOrOBOpKH H

HOCJIOBHUbI, pOJHBMHeC nociie OKTS6pI 1917 roga. 22. MbI c BaHbKOr yrOBOpHJHCb KaK-HH6yaEb CXOJHTb Tyaa.

*23. HYKHO 3TO KaK-Ji6o O4OpMHTb. 24. ApceHHII POMaHOBHI nOTOpOHJnC5 KaX-HH6yJU HpHJnaaHTb

lOfaTIAKy.

(Ky,ga-) 25. Vlpome.ii Mail. Haao 6bIuo yexaTb Kyaa-HH6yab, cnacaTbCs OT

nORApHoro fIeTep6yprcKcoro iieTa. 26. He OTXOl4Te OT MeHA. Eige rpOBaniHTecb Kyaa-HH6yaXb. 27. CnPq'bTe 3TO Kyaa-HH6yaEb flogaJib1e.

(Korga-) 28. BbI Korga-HM6yiEb no)aJIeeTe O BbI6IYCKe He3peJIO1i KHHKKH. 29. KorAa-HH6yAj Mbi BCe yMpeM. 30. )KCHJIH JIH BbI KorlAa-HH6yab B aepeBHe? 31. KOH'IHIJHb JIH TbI Koraa-H46yab? 32. Pa3Be 6rIJIO Koraa-HH6yub, YTo6 oHa He cAeinana Toro, 'iero

3aXoTena? 33. KaTA, flpOCTHUJb Tbl MeHS KorUa-HH6yJab? 34. Ki4PHJIJI TpeHHPOBaJI riaMITb BOCCTaHOJECeH4eM BCerO, 'ITO

Kor,aa-HH6yxrb y3HaJi. *35. Cy,na Jilm eMy yIaCTb YBHgeTb Hx eWe Kor4a-ji16o B ripOJgOJi-

)eHmH CBOCH HK3H HM. *36. OH HOCMOTPenJ Ha CBOHX J1oJeil BHHMaTeibHee, 'leM KorAa-

Jl6o npexcge.

(KTO-) 37. OHia IIPOCHlia nepegaTb ee 3anHcH KOMy-HH6yJu6 B HHCTHTyTe. 38. KaxAbIii BeIep OH YXOaHJ K KOMy-H46yab H3 CBOHX 4py3efl.

39. HHKojairi 6oJIeH, rIOIIpOCHTe KOrO-HHl6yEb H3 TOBapHweri 3ailTH K HeMy.

40. MHe KTO-HH6y4b 3BoHHJI? 41. Korga eMy KTO-Hi6ygb 3BOHHJI, OH CHHMaJI Tpy6Ky H rOBOPHll:

('Bac CJIyiiialOT>). *42. OH He Ji106HJI, 'ITo6EI KTO-JI160 066H)Kaji ero MaTh. *43. OH yKe HOHAIJI CYJIHOCTb HCKYCCTBa JIy'uHe, 'eM KTo-JIH6o

,apyrori. 44. nLocoBeTyyiTeci c KeM-HH6yJRb.

45. IpHIXOAHTCAI BbI3BaTb KorO-HH6yab H3 Cjiy)KaiuHX. 46. ECJIH KTO-Hi46y4b 143 BaC, TOBapmiul4, YBl4JIlT 3y6oBa, nOJinHTe

ero, nIo)KajiyHCTa, KO MHe. 47. OH rlornJAIen BOKpyr ce6si: He o6ecnoKowI Jni Koro-HF-6yAi6

CBOM mLHxaHbeM? 48. OH 'YBCTByeT niOTpe6HOCTb BbICKa3aTbCA XOTb KOMY-HH6YJmb,

- XOTb ApKaxu-no. *49. flocoBeTY14TeCb C KeM-JIH60- OH BaM CKa)KeT OAHO H TO wKe. *50. HHiero io0o6Horo H4 JIe Kop6lo3be, HH KTO-JIH6oH 3 cyue-

CTBOBaBIHX Ao cHx nop apxHTeKTOpOB He co3,aBaJi. ('ITO-) 51. BbI XOTHTe HO'IHTaTb ITO-HM6yab 43 npOM3BeJgeHHl COBpeMeH-

HbiX aBTOPOB? 52. Korja OH 'TO-HH6yJib paCCKa3bIBaeT, y Hero CMeIUHO ABHralOT-

CII yCbI.



ON INDEFINITE PRONOUNS IN RUSSIAN 469 53. EcIri TbI 'ITO-HH6ygb eiaeJiiE, Aejia1t 3TO XOpOIIO.

54. HeciKoJimco AeCATKOB rOJIOCOB KpH'aJIH pa3OM, TaK 1TO TpyqHO

6bIJIo ITO-HH6yqb pa3o6paTb. 55. BbIBaeT, HA~euJb, 0 '{eM-HH6yab gyMaamb, ii Bapyr 13-3a KyCTa,

AepeBa, capa5 nporpeMHT: #Ky-Ka-pe-cy!)) 56. BbI aOJI)KHbI TBepJO YCBOHTb IIpOCTYIO 1CTHHy: HeT KHHrH,

KOTOpa.1 He yxIHJTIa 6bi niioAeH 'IeMy-HH6yab.

57. JIeXTOP ona34bIBaeT, HaBepHoe, MTO-HI6yRb 3aaepxcajio ero. 58. OH O'eHb UIJIOXO BbIrJI3MHT, HaBepHOe, OH MeM-HH6yab 6o.neH. 59. floCOBeTyi!Te MHe 'ITO-HmH6Yab IIO'IHTaTb. 60. 51... He gyMan, TO6bI H3 Te6R BbI6IJJJO '4TO-HH6yAb nVTHOe.

61. B MeXaHHKC H I AerO-H46YAb ga CTOIO. 62. IaflTe 'ITO-HH6yqb nO'IHTaTb. 63. HeT JIH merO-HH6y,4b BbIIHHTb?

64. EcJIH oropqaT ee eM-HH6yAb, OHa geJiaeTcH MoJI'IaJHBa. 65. OHH aoJiro peiimaJIH, KOCTep JIH 3TO, OrOHb JIH B OKHe HJIH 'TO-

HH6y,ab xapyroe. *66. He 6bIJO HHKaKOii npIWHHbI aO 311MMb 'ITo-nH60 H3MeHSITb B

YCTpOfICTBe WK43HH4.

*67. B CepKBH we POHJaH IOHSTb ITO-JIH6o 6e3 CHeuHaSji1HbIX KOMMeHTapHeB IIpOCTO HeBO3MO)KHO.

(ru;e-) *68. flpOayKTEI XpaHITCA rAe-iiH6o B XOJIO)jHOM rOMmeeHHH. 69. Fxae-HH6y)E niOo6eAaeM. 70. YCTPOHBImHcib rme-HM6yRB Ha TpaBKe, OHI YHWYTOKaJIu fipH-

HeCeHHbIe )KeHamH flpOIyKTBI. *71. KpOBaTb CToIna Bce euge HeTpOHyTOil, KaK 6yx4TO OH 6eran

rgRe-nIH60 HenOJqaJieKy. 72. 51... yxe co64pancsA 6Eino flpHJIeieb rae-HH6yab jAo yTpa, Kaic

BApyr OIYTHICS HaA CTpalHHOH 6e3AHoA.

73. PeKa B3ayJIaCb, nlepee3CaTb rjae-HH6yJ4b B6pOa,- 3aMOqIHMCS

no meio. (eri-) *74. TYT... He 6buIo H TeHHI6bef-mIH6o #(3JiO BOJH4).

75. 14 IIUaKaTh XOIeTCA... H XC 'IbeMy-H46yJEb riuey IIpHxaTbCS.



on indefinite pronouns in russian

Documents