American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Russian meždu/mež with the GenitiveAuthor(s): Charles A. MoserSource: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Winter, 1969), pp. 473-478Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/306225 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 20:15

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 support@jstor.org.

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.78 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Russian mevdu/mez with the Genitive

Charles A. Moser, George Washington University

Russian grammarians have long been in the habit of stating with little qualification that the preposition me'du 'between, among,' along with its variant me', ordinarily governs the instrumental case, and only infrequently the genitive.1 The Grammar of the USSR Academy of Sciences, for ex- ample, leaves the distinct impression that me'du occurs with the genitive case but rarely: it cites only one instance of me'du with the genitive (Pu'kin's "Ja stal izvesten mez ljudej") while furnishing numerous exam- ples of me'du with the instrumental.2 Still, specialists on the Russian language do pay some attention to this latter construction. In her Short Russian Reference Grammar I. M. Pulkina describes it as one "mainly used in folk songs, proverbs and sayings and in some set expressions ... ; occa- sionally it is used in fiction."3 The question of mezdu with the genitive is treated in more detail in V. A. Dobromyslov and D. A. Rozental"s Trudnye voprosy grammatiki i pravopisanija. However, they draw their small number of examples of the usage from the writings of Karamzin, Krylov, and Turgenev and conclude that the construction is archaic (they cite some set expressions in which it is retained) or at best poetic, occurring most fre- quently in folk poetry.4 A. V. Isa'enko, in his extensive Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart, remarks that this particular usage is not common and appears mostly when the "direction of an action" is involved, although it may also be employed in expressions of location.5 Nicholas Maltzoff writes--concisely but accurately for the modern language-that the preposi- tion "seldom governs the genitive case, and only with similar or identical objects."6 More extensive treatments of the problem may be found in F. I. Buslaev's Istoriceskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka (first published in 1858) and V. S. Bondarenko's Predlogi v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Buslaev views the construction seriously, citing numerous examples of it (some of which I have utilized in this article) from Old Russian, folklore, and late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century authors.' Bondarenko gives several random instances of the usage while maintaining that it dis- plays "certain archaic overtones." The preposition me', he continues, is emphatically archaic, despite the fact that modern poets may employ it with either genitive or instrumental for stylistic purposes.8

SEEJ, Vol. XIII, No. 4 (1969) 473

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.78 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

474 The Slavic and East European Journal

Certainly none of these discussions of the construction me.6du plus genitive (or me' plus genitive, which we shall treat as equivalents) does full justice to its complexity. The present article will investigate in more detail the problem of the case governed by mezdu/lmed in literary Russian (with special reference to the genitive) in its historical and contemporary aspects.

It should be noted as an aside that, in addition to the instrumental and the genitive, in the Old Russian period the preposition mezdu/mez also gov- erned the accusative. N. I. Bukatevic, the author of an extensive study of the historical development of Russian prepositions,9 mentions the occurrence of such constructions in the oldest texts when motion into a delimited space was involved: "a druzii poido'a Kyevu, i pustisa na

vorop, mezi Kyevb i

Vyiegorod?," (Ipat'evskaja letopis', 212, quoted p. 92). In our day this usage has vanished, but as late as Dal"s time it was still sufficiently alive to be included in his dictionary (the example given is "zapusti pal'cy mel pal'cy").10

Thus med did occur with the accusative in a limited way in the past, but it is indisputable that the preposition me6du/med has usually vacillated between the instrumental and the genitive. Bukatevi6 writes that in Old Russian the preposition could be used with either of these cases but that the genitive was predominant (p. 90); he then inconsistently goes on to cite examples with the instrumental alone (90-91). Then he remarks, more accurately, that the preposition in its OCS form (mezdu) tended to govern the instrumental, whereas in its Russian form (med and its variants) it usually took the genitive (p. 91). If one were to judge solely by Sreznev- skij's Materialy dlja slovarfa drevne-russkogo jazyka, it would seem that mezdu invariably governed the instrumental (Sreznevskij gives no examples with the genitive), whereas the preposition in its Russian forms (mezs, mevu, mevi) could take either case. One of Sreznevskij's instances of usage with the genitive is: "Vy li suth is pustyni Evtriskija, suski mei& vostoka i severa" (Nikon. letopis', 6733 g.).11 The competition between the two cases in Old Russian is vividly illustrated by sentences in which both were em- ployed with one and the same preposition: "A meiju Tfer'ju i Novagoroda

roza~zd, po davnoi po'lin'" (Dog. gr. Tv. v. k. Mix. Jar. s Novg., 1301- 1302 g.)12 and "Bystb poboisce . . . mezi gorody Dubravny i Ostroda" (Novg. I let., 6918 g. [po. Ak. sp.] ).13 These sentences demonstrate the depths of the confusion surrounding meddu/me' in Old Russian, a confusion which survived in the writings of Karamzin ("Dolgo visel on meidu nebom i zemleju, meidu zizni i smerti") and Deriavin ("Meidu lentjaem i brjuz- goj, / Meidu tgieslav'ja i porokom / Na'el kto razve nenarokom / Put' dobrodeteli prjamoj" ["Felica"I).

Any statistical study of contemporary Russian would obviously show that me~du/me3 ordinarily governs the instrumental in a whole gamut of

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.78 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Russian mezdu/med with the Genitive 475

meanings. Despite this, the genitive occurs with it too frequently for the construction to be dismissed as nothing more than a holdover from earlier days. In many instances a phrase employing me'du plus genitive is hardly distinguishable in meaning from one using me'du plus instrumental. Several hypotheses may be advanced to help account for the continued existence of the construction me'du plus genitive. To begin with, one should note that, because of its lexical meaning, mezdu is the preposition which most often requires a double object; in addition it is frequently found with a plural object, and such prepositions (especially sredi 'among,' of which more will be said below) tend to govern the genitive. Furthermore, the form mezdu is historically a locative case form of a noun (Slovar' Akademii rossijskoj [1789-1794], incidentally, gives the stress as mezddd, the same as the present-day stress of the word in Bulgarian, which makes it clear that a locative case form in -4 was originally involved here). Now the bulk of the prepositions governing the instrumental or locative cases are not analyzable into component parts (prepositions like nad, pered), whereas compound prepositions or those which were originally oblique forms of a noun usually govern the genitive, or sometimes the dative. Another factor may be the influence of the preposition promezdu/promez 'between, among,' which is now usually considered to take the genitive, less often the instrumental and, occasionally in historical usage, as Buslaev demonstrates,14 the accusative, i.e., the same set of cases as mezdu/mez. The inclination of promezdu to gravitate toward the genitive may have helped keep the construction mexdu/ mez plus genitive alive. Another element favoring the survival of this con- struction in the poetic language is the fact that a poet may usually save syllables by employing the genitive rather than the instrumental with me du, especially if adjectives are included in the prepositional phrase. Finally, the construction mezdu/mel plus genitive is common in folklore, and modern writers may use the form under its influence. Of course, even all these explanations summed together cannot account fully for the fact that mezdu/ mez plus genitive still exists in the contemporary language, but they do make it easier to understand its survival.

Although in most instances mezdu/mez governs the instrumental, it is extremely difficult to isolate situations in which the genitive may never be used with roughly the same meaning. Mezdu/me' does govern the instru- mental almost invariably in the special-and from the lexical point of view rather illogical--case when it has a single object formally in the singular number. Examples of this include the everyday expression me'du sobof as well as a phrase from one of A. K. Tolstoj's stanzas: "Solnce Ziet; pered grozoju / Izmenilsja morja vid: / Zasverkal mel birjuzoju / Izumrud i malaxit" (Krymskie ocerki). In the older language, however, one may dis- cover examples contrary even to this, as in Krylov's line: "i zavela domok / pod kustikom, v teni, mel travki, kak raek" ("Ljagulka i Jupiter"). The

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.78 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

476 The Slavic and East European Journal

instrumental will almost always be used if the preposition has two objects (both singular, both plural, or one singular and one plural): "Usni, moe ditja, me2 nimi i toboj / On blagostnoj rukoj opustit pokryvalo" (A. K. Tolstoj, "Usni, pe'al'nyj drug.. ."). On the other hand, in the older lan- guage (especially poetic language), the genitive could occur in this situa- tion: "Xot' est' li raznost' ut me' vedra i nenast'ja?" (M. N. Murav'ev, "Ripistola k N. R. R***").

Since it is so difficult to identify even any situations in which mezdu/ mez governs the instrumental exclusively, it is plain that the most one can hope to do with the genitive is to point out some instances in which it is likely to occur. My examples are arranged with the following categories in mind: late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century usage, as opposed to later nineteenth-century and twentieth-century usage; usage with verbs of motion (there is apparently a stronger tendency for the construction to occur linked with verbs of motion, but this does not seem to be a decisive factor) ; and usage in contemporary poetry, poetic prose, and ordinary prose. Also, in presenting these examples I pass over the category of abstract set expressions in which me'du/mez may be employed with the genitive to differentiate the expression from the same combination of words employed in a concrete sense. Instances of this include: me'du dvumja stul'jami / mezdu dvux stul'ev, me'du dvumja ognjami / meddu dvux ognej, zablu- dit'sja me'du trex sosen.

(1.) The genitive rather than the instrumental is very likely to be employed when mezdu is approximately synonymous with the preposition sredi. In the contemporary language the object of the preposition is ordi- narily in the plural.

Older poetic prose: "g8 me'nTa, IIOAo6HO TaIo~oy iexoBecy, ITopoi0 emcAy rpo6oB H Iorax BaHpaeT Ha npax yMepmHx, a omaHsBJT ero B CBoemI Boo6pamceHHHI" (EapaMaHH).

Older poetry: "B ogeneIaHeHni CToaX, / 6ea naiaRTH, 6ea 6MTHa, / MeHo IraMHei XBaAHImm IaaemH a" (MyOlY BCIsHi). "H B BMICOTe, 0oHapL HO'nH0o, / ByHa BHCHT Meea o6Ba.0oB" (~IyyIcoBCIKHi). "H MeAy nac BOIOT, EiaiE Heiora Opcei / MeacAy MOXHaTLIX iea, nIo Bepe crapux r Hefl" (BopaTMnIHCI l). "MeC

roBopaHBIx Hami, my'ac, OHa poAHia / MHay1o A0o'" (HIymImH). "Ha TpoHe, Ha IpoBaBox node, / Mere rpamaH Ha peAe Hnoi{ / Hs cHx na6paHHmIX ITO BCeX 603o / TBoeio BIaCTByeT Aymo ?" (lymInHH).

"06qafii-Je-A noT enIe lmojAe" (HlymIniH). "H BeJaIo, mHe 6yAyT

HaczataceHL / Meac

ropecrTe, sa60T H TpeBonHeHIa" (IIymIiHH). Older poetry, motion: "3a HHM paciafHa e He XOAHT / HH meacAy HHB, HH HO ca~aM,

/ HH HO xoaxxa, IIORpITLIM cTaAOM, / HH Meac osep H iyClp IIpHaJTHIX,- / HO BCIOAY

paAOCTI H, BOCTOpr" (AepmaBnHH). Older prose: "IIpOTBHmHX ero Ha'AeH meajAy MepTBLIX Tea" (HymuHHn). "He-

CKOOLCO IHymeIe, MHeacAy KOHX ynHaa a HamyIy, HOCTaBaOHMI 6BH Ha IIOXOAHBII Aa(PeTLI" (IIyIIHH). "BCIIOMHHTe IoTeMrHHa, IOTOplII rpaI3 HOrTH Ha IHpax H M-erAy myITOI pemax B yne

cyAa6MX HapoAoB" (BeaHHCIoHi). Modern poetry: "EIyE HoYH Meeacy AHOTIOB IIpHOTIpPI" (3a6oAornHii). Modern poetry, motion: "BoT

ncgepaia saecL meac seeHH HAIIHT, / xeCTa I aIxC

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.78 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Russian mezdu/med with the Genitive 477

Hsyxpy), SHBHJaCTO CROJIaSHT" (A. E. ToAcTof). "Apyrie jesaH B nea~ / memay yyma~x JHCTOB" (3a6oaosAHfi). "MHoroo'nsTme TpaxBaH / HJIIByT emeAy IoA.BOoAHBIX ~nmn" (Xo- AaceBHX). "roAoca BsaeTaIOT memAy JICTLeB, emeAy cTBnojiB HeacHiI" (Hocw( BpoA- CHIA). "ryaJIIOT AmI JrnHme em ySanx ax6pasyp" (THxonoB). "EorAa B HCxoAe

aHeHf gAOMaHnnBLix / Mem Ty' nporaJHeTT cHaeBa, / aR He6o HpasAHH IHO

B upopPMax, / IaE TopmeTBa nojLaa TpaBa" (IIacTepHaR).

Modern prose, motion: "HaioHegi B CTopoHe xmeasHyx em sene TBi EyCOe 4epHOH, ERK 6apxaT, nHaHH" (EopojeHnRo). "OH . . . r AeJ Mesm c CTBOJIOB HuXT H coCeH B naJIH-

caAHHie Ha rp8SHyiO penKy B JLyrax" (ByHnH). "OH mej mem CTOJHROB, Taofi Cme, naR BcerJa" (AceHnon).

Modern poetic prose: "aaHTeo BL3BaXH IIymiHHa

Ha JyDsJ, TO eCTL 8aMaHRi ero Ha cner H Tam, memay 'epHix 6e3J[HCTmX Aepe.BeA, y6nJ" (IPBeTaeBa).

Modern poetic prose, motion: "H BOT, Hanpaira BCe CHJnT, ITO6I upOHH3SaT rIasaxJ3 TOIHYIO MYTr paccBsea H yBHaeTL y upaiHero oEHa MaTpag, InOCTjaHHrI Ha Hnoy, MHMO HpXHBHHeHHnIX K HiOOBHaIaM HSIRHX 0oeR, MxeAy HneCEOH'aeMIx paAOB HX, B AaJLLHHH yroX.. ." (eeAHH).

(2.) The preposition mezdu/mez is frequently used with the genitive when the prepositional phrase refers to location between pairs of things, ordinarily close together. The numeral dvux is often either present or may easily be inserted (compare the presence of the root of two in such English words as betwixt and between). Paired parts of the body constitute a special subcategory within this group. Here mezdu/mez governs the genitive in most instances, especially if the prepositional phrase is associated with a verb of motion; indeed it may be that the use of the genitive is obligatory in this situation. Compare the expression "udarit' meidu glaz" or the fol- lowing examples:

"IHOTOT orraTh ycexca [opmyn] H BTJHIJ r OJIOBy meamjy nIaei" (Ropoaenno). "Ona . . .

no[ommn2iHal paxa oO Me~Ay ymei" (AncenoB). ",AeH

. .. CTaJIH ~pasBas8IBaT y~seJEH, BMHHMaTL IeneImIE H PpacRKIJamBairTL HX Ha nII semacy paImo JemaIIH n Hor" (BynHH).

With pronouns: "ga TOJILao noMnHHTe TY pasunHIy eme nmac" (IpmioB). "Sa'ee Ty~ TpeTHi emAy nac?" (HeipacoB). "H OTTO~O ABOHTCJI / BI DTa HO'n B cHery, / H IpoBecTH rpanimtai / Me z Hac He mory" (HacTepHan).

Older poetry: "OcTaicrn B Boe OAHHon,

ina Tppyn nmea rpo6o0sx Aocon" (Kynon- Gcnii). "B TOil Hope, BO TLe neTaOrHno, / rpo6 na'aeTcH xpycTan~IHbIH / Ha genax nemAy cTOJ6BOB" (HymICnH).

Older poetry, motion: "H 6mCTpui napyc reHnona / MecmAy He6ec H BOA JeTeat" (1SCynoBCnnHi).

Older prose: "Boa~manan H ygman 'racmr ropoAa JLemrHT emy pen" (Eapaxisi). "Ha yBIOfl AOJIHHe meBACy rop ... jenHT Ta mauenHxan AepeBeIBLRa, EOTpaR 6LAra geJHIo Hamero nyTemecTBHJa" (K(apaxsHI).

Modern prose: "OnH BmaonaJi axy men mABy XyCTOB" (4PaAeeB). "MescAy CTpaH n MHe nonaaaecca G aJHHHIII TexMHlIr i BOJIoc" (Easai~oB). "MeneAy CTPOR OH taR 6yATO amce 6aaroAapnu oTa" (JeoHnonB).

Modern prose, motion: "Milr maH MemAY AByx a6opoB, rpy6o cOmieHnIaix

H

HepOBHLIX naxHnei, 6ea BcqCnoro eMeHTa" (ronTapoB). "AOH ZyaH (BlIxoAq H1 ray6oI0oi

pacceaun eamcAy HJHTT)" (ryIUeB).

It should be clear from the sentences just cited-drawn from contemporaries

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.78 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

478 The Slavic and East European Journal

as well as from classic authors of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, from prose-writers as well as poets-that the use of me.du/me' with the genitive is too widespread to be legitimately dismissed as archaic under all circumstances. It has a definite if modest place in the contemporary language. Though predictions in such matters are hazardous, there is a possibility that the construction may become separated syntactically to cover the two major categories just distinguished, so that mezdu/me' will be used only with the genitive in these instances. For the time being, though, the situation remains confused, as may be seen from the parallel uses in a stanza from Xodasevic': "Doma-kak demony, / Meidu domami-mrak; / Serengi demonov, / I meidu nix--skvoznjak."15

NOTES

1 I should like to thank Mrs. Richard Thompson, George Washington Univ., and Charles E. Townsend, Princeton Univ., for reading this article in preliminary versions and making suggestions for its improvement, some of which I have adopted without giving specific credit for them.

2 <<?paMMaTHua pyccioro asJ8ba> (3 TT.; M.: AH CCCP, 1960), T. II: CHHTaECHC, '.

1, CTp. 197-198, 273-274, 323. The example from Puikin is given on p. 323. 3 I. M. Pulkina, A Short Russian Reference Grammar (2nd ed.; M., [n.d.]), 117. 4 B. A. ~o6poMIcJoB H . 3. PosemTazL, <TpYAnHe B onpocm rpaMMaTHUH H HlpaBO-

uHcaHH?a> (2-e, nepepa6. H8A., BMI. 1; M., 1958), 96-97. 5 A. V. Isabenko, Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart, Teil I: Formenlehre

(Halle, 1962), 569. 6 Nicholas Maltzoff, Russian Reference Grammar (N.Y., 1965), 277. 7 (. H. BycjaeB, <HcTopwPecaas rpaMMaTHia pyccioro asuRa>> (M., 1959), 483-484.

Incidentally, Buslaev probably devoted more attention to the question of me'du/ mez plus genitive than he might have otherwise because (as he wrote in the Foreword to the first edition, p. 575) he wanted to show that the grammars of his day were incorrect in stating that the genitive occurred with verbs of motion and the instrumental was used otherwise.

8 B. C. BoHnapeHuo, <<IIpeAJorH B co0pexeHHox

pyccKor a~rne>> (M., 1961), 27-28. 9 H. H. ByRaTeBHT,, <<n0IT HCT0pHnec0r0 H8yIeHIKI ipenaoroB

H iipeAnoJI0AHIX co0e-

TaiHHI B pyCCROM IHlTepaTypHO0 RlmRue>> (2 iaCTH; Opecca, 1957-1958), I, 90-92. 10 B. Aaa, <<ToJRoBmi CBap AZHBoro Bea3ropyccKoro 18L8a> (2-e, nepepa6. H1A. B

4-x TT.; CII6., M., 1880-1882; M., 1955), II, 314. 11 H. H. CpeaHeBcEHi, <<MaTepai a joB

cj0Iapa ApeBHe-pycc1oro asmiUa>> (3 TT.; C116., 1893-1912; M., 1958), II, 127.

12 Ibid., 126. 13 Ibid., 125. 14 Buslaev, 484-485. 15 B. XoAaceBHn, Co6paHHe CTHXOB>> (New Haven, Ct., 1961), 136.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.78 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions