300A Reference Grammar of Russian

([120]) can be formed, showing that the genitive argument of quantifying predicates is analogous to a nominative subject ([119--20]):

[119]Jy ghjcbn e vtyz nhb rjgtqrb, yt [dfnf/ob[<pcl> yf rhe;re gbdf. He begs me for three kopecks, not sufficing for a mug of beer.

[120]Nfrbt lfyyst, ,elexb<dee> ljcnfnjxysvb lkz ghbyznbz htitybz ghjrehjhjv,

<. . .>

Such facts, being sufficient for a prosecutor to make a decision, <. . .>

Thus there is a network of constructions involving quantifiers, quantifying predicates (and existential be), and the genitive case. Quantifiers combine with nouns to make argument phrases used in a variety of constructions. Quantifiers themselves can predicate, and they combine and form interesting constructions. The genitive case is used for nouns that are in construction with overt quantifiers. If the predicate itself is sufficiently quantifying, the genitive can be used without there being a quantifier constituent. The genitive fulfills a role analogous to that of a nominative subject, though it is less individuated than the typical subject.

5.3.4 Existential predication and the subject genitive of negation: basic paradigm

Many predicates situate an aspectual argument in a domain, whether physical space or the perception of the speaker.17 In principle such predications can be interpreted in two different ways, as individuating or existential. The difference in meaning and syntactic properties is especially clear with the predicate be. (The term is convenient for the pattern, even though no form of ,s´ nm is used in the present tense.)

The individuating interpretation assumes a well-defined individual, some of whose properties are known independently. The current predication concerns another property of that individual, namely location in some domain. The word order is normally S V Dom.

17 Chvany 1975 drew the sharp distinction between the existential use of be and its predicative function. Babby 1980 argued that the genitive occurs when the relevant argument is included in the scope of negation, where scope is defined in terms of functional sentence perspective (modified in Babby 2001 to the claim that both subject and object genitives result when the argument is in the scope of verb-phrase negation). Guiraud-Weber 1984 examines the functional differences between genitive and nominative constructions (Z yt ,sk d Vjcrdt). Robblee (1991, 1993[a], 1993[b], 1996) posits a hierarchy of predicates from existential (and modal and quantifying) through individuating intransitives to transitives. I have relied on this latter body of work here. Paducheva (1992, 1997) establishes the limits of use of the genitive of negation, layered from regular to occasional to non-existent, as a function of predicate semantics. Ultimately the “semantic invariant” proposed for the construction with the genitive is: “{ does not exist in the World/Place,” where the place can be “the perceptual space of the Subject of consciousness.” Here the exposition emphasizes the difference in structuring of information: the nominative is a statement of a property of an individual, among alternatives; the genitive is a statement about the world.

Predicates and arguments 301

[121]	,sk
	Vfktymrbq ghbyw ---	yf vfktymrjq gkfytnt.
	,eltn

was
The Little Prince is	on the small planet.
will be

When an individuating predication is negated, nothing happens to the structure of the clause, and negation is the usual negative particle yt in the present tense:

[122]	yt ,sk
	Vfktymrbq ghbyw yt	yf vfktymrjq gkfytnt.
	yt ,eltn

wasn’t
The Little Prince isn’t	on the small planet.
won’t be

The individuating interpretation is forced if different possible locations are contrasted ([123]) or if the predicate is contrasted with another predicate sharing the same subject ([124]):

[123]Jy ,sk yt d Vjcrdt, f d Gfhb;t. He was not in Moscow, but in Paris.

[124]Jy yt ,sk d Vjcrdt, f cktlbk pf cj,snbzvb bplfktxt.

He was not in Moscow, but still kept track of events from afar.

Thus, individuating predicates (including be) have ordinary syntactic properties. In contrast, with the existential interpretation, the predicate establishes a state of the world, which is the presence or absence of some entity in a domain. The entity is often understood in essentialist terms, as the token of a type. The domain is presumed known. If no domain is actually named, it can be the world in general, or some more specific domain known in context. The word order is

normally Dom V S (though see [127]).

[125]	,skb
	{	---		tcnm	}
	Yf gkfytnt				njkmrj uke,jrjdjlyst ;bntkb<nom> .
	,elen

were
On the planet there are	only deep-water inhabitants.
will be

The present tense of the existential construction has either no overt form of a verb or, occasionally, the residual particle †cnm (§5.3.12).

302 A Reference Grammar of Russian

When an existential predication is negated, the entity whose presence in the world is denied is expressed in the genitive.

[126]	yt ,skj<nt pst>
	Yf gkfytnt ,jkmit ytn		k/ltq<gen> .
	yt ,eltn<3sg fut>
	were
	On the planet there are	no longer any people.
	will be

In the present tense, negation is marked by y†n (colloquial y†ne). When an existential predication is negated and the subject is expressed in the genitive, the predicate no longer agrees with any argument, and becomes “impersonal”: it appears in the neuter singular (past) or third-singular (present, future). The neutral order is Dom V S, but other orders occur: F sk/ltq dyf gkfytnt ,jkmit yt v,eltn ‘As for people, there will no longer be any’.

Some other predicates can also be used in both individuating and existential senses, for example, jcnƒnmcz/jcnfdƒnmcz ‘remain’:

[127]Yf gkfytnt jcnfkbcm d ;bds[ njkmrj эrbgf;b<nom> rjcvbxtcrb[ cnfywbq. On the planet there remained alive only the crews of the space stations.

[128]Yf dctq gkfytnt yt jcnfkjcm yb jlyjuj ;bdjuj xtkjdtrf<gen> . On the whole planet there did not remain a single person.

A domain expressed by the preposition e<\gen> establishes a sphere of control or influence of an animate entity.

[129]	,skb
	E vtyz dctulf ---		gkfys<nom> yfgjktjyjdcrbt.
	,elen
	had
	I always have	Napoleonic plans.
	will have
[130]		yt ,skj
	E vtyz ybrjulf ytn		gkfyjd<gen> .
		yt ,eltn
	had
	I never have	any plans.
	will have

By asserting the existence of an entity in the sphere of influence of an animate being, this construction corresponds to transitive predicates of the type of English have (on bv†nm, see §5.3.11). The possessive construction can be considered

Predicates and arguments 303

a special case of existential be constructions. It has the same use of case, notably genitive when the whole situation of possession is negated.

The predicate be can function as a copula -- as a linking verb -- when it is combined with a predicative noun or adjective (§5.2). A predicative (or copular) construction is necessarily individuating. Its communicative force lies in asserting (or denying) that one property as opposed to another holds of a known entity; it is then a statement about an entity, rather than a statement about the world as a whole. No matter how one tries, the genitive cannot be used for the subject argument when a predicative is negated:

[131]Ybrnj<nom> yt ,sk ,tphfpkbxysv r celm,t. No one was indifferent to fate.

[132]Ybrjuj<gen> yt ,skj ,tphfpkbxyj r celm,t.

[133]Tot yb jlyf enhfnf<nom> yt ,skf nfr nz;tkf lkz ytuj. No prior loss was so hard for him.

[134]Tot yb jlyjq enhfns<gen> yt ,skj nfr nz;tkj lkz ytuj.18

[135]D nfrjv ujhjlbirt ybxnj<nom> ( ybxtuj<gen> ) yt jcnftncz ctrhtnjv. In such a town nothing remains a secret.

[136]Ybxnj<nom> ( ybxtuj<gen> ) yt {cdznj dtxyj}. Nothing is {holy eternal}

Thus, constructions involving an aspectual argument and a domain expression can be interpreted as individuating or existential, and there is a significant difference in morphosyntax when the predicate is negated. Although the sense of a predication as existential or individuating is a holistic reading, how likely the existential reading is -- and how likely the genitive case is under negation -- depends on three considerations: (a) the predicate; (b) the reference of the nominal argument; and (c) the context of the predication.

5.3.5 Existential predication and the subject genitive of negation: predicates

It was implicit in the discussion above that be is virtually in a class by itself (perhaps to be joined by modals yƒlj, yé;yj that can take an accusative or genitive even when not negated). Be would normally take the genitive when negated, even with aspectual arguments whose reference is strongly individuated (pronouns, proper nouns). After be, the quintessential existential, there is a score or so of predicates that can take the genitive of negation (Table 5.6).19 These fall into recognizable semantic subgroups. All these verbs comment on existence, but each adds something over and above merely asserting existence. With perceptuals, existence is determined relative to the field of perception of

18Yet Trubetzkoy (1975:268) wrote, Ybxtuj yt ujnjdj ‘There is nothing ready’.

19List based on Robblee 1991, Paducheva 1997.

304 A Reference Grammar of Russian

Table 5.6 Semantic classes of existential predicates

predicates	semantics
pfv†nyj ‘noticeable’, d∫lyj ‘visible’, cks´ iyj	perception: possibility of existence of
‘audible’, xédcndjdfnmcz ‘be felt’, ljyjc∫nmcz	state in perceptual space
‘carry’, d∫ltnmcz ‘be seen’

jrfpƒnmcz ‘turn out’, j,yfhé;bnmcz ‘show up’, gjck†ljdfnm ‘follow’, gjzd∫nmcz ‘appear’, yfqn∫cm ‘be found’

nh†,jdfnmcz ‘be needed’

inception of perception: inception of existence of state in perceptual space despite expectation of non-state

modality: existence of situation of necessity (obligation, possibility)

cnƒnm ‘become’, bv†nmcz ‘exist’, ckex∫nmcz	occasion: inception of existence of state
‘occur’, gjgƒcnmcz ‘happen’, ghjbpjqn∫ ‘occur’,	despite possibility of non-state
dcnh†nbnmcz ‘be met with’, djpy∫ryenm ‘arise’
cj[hfy∫nmcz ‘be preserved’, jcnƒnmcz ‘remain’	preservation: continued existence of
	state despite possibility of non-state
ds´ qnb ‘come out’, ds´ hf,jnfnmcz ‘get	production: coming into existence of
produced’, j,hfpjdƒnmcz ‘be formed’, ghbqn∫	state despite possibility of non-state
‘arrive’

an observer. With other verbs, what is added is a sense of change in the status of existence, from non-existence to existence. This aspectual sense of change is flavored by the modal expectation that, if it were not for unusual circumstances, the original situation of non-existence would have continued. As a general rule, a strong modal sense of expectation to the contrary inhibits the use of the genitive. The modal sense is weak with cnƒnm ‘become’ or ghjbpjqn∫ ‘occur’, stronger with gjgƒcnmcz ‘to come on the scene suddenly, haphazardly, unexpectedly’ or with the verbs of production, e.g., ds´ hf,jnfnmcz ‘to get produced overcoming obstacles’. Verbs of preservation (jcnƒnmcz ‘remain’, cj[hfy∫nmcz ‘get preserved’) assert continuing existence despite a clear and present danger of non-existence. Jrfpƒnmcz ‘turn out to be’ combines emergence and perception. Thus there is a set of predicates that deal with existence but, at the same time, they are weaker assertions of existence than be, because they keep in mind alternative possibilities.

The predicates of Table 5.6 tend to occur with common nouns that are understood in essentialist terms, as tokens of a class, and when they are negated, can use the genitive:

[137]Jyf gjbcrfkf, yt jcnfkjcm kb zujl<gen> .

She verified whether there did not remain berries.

Predicates and arguments 305

[138]Dct[ wtyys[ pdthtq hfcgeufkb, cj,jktq<gen> gjxnb yt jcnfkjcm.

All valuable animals had been frightened off, almost no sables remained.

Individuated arguments (pronouns, proper nouns) are unlikely to be used with these predicates, and unlikely to appear in the genitive,20 except for the perceptuals ([139]) and cnƒnm, in an idiomatic sense ([140]):

[139]Dfyb {yt dblyj ? yt jrfpfkjcm ? yt jcnfkjcm} yf ekbwt.

Vania {was not to be seen didn’t turn up did not remain} on the street.

[140]Dfyb yt cnfkj.

Vania is no more [has died].

With predicates other than those of Table 5.6, an existential reading (and the genitive of negation) are unusual, although examples, often constructed, are cited in the linguistic literature. With verbs of position, the genitive is used with time expressions or with an emphatic operator: yt ghjikj b lde[ xfcjd ‘not even two hours passed’; yf utnnj yt gfkj b ntyb gjljphtybz ‘not a hint of suspicion fell on the ghetto’; yb jlyjq ,jv,s yt egfkj ‘there did not fall a single bomb’. With verbs that specify something about the manner of position, the genitive is labored: yf pf,jhf[ yt dbctkj vfkmxbitr ‘on the fence there did not hang any lads’; vt;le ,htdyfvb yt crbnfkjcm ghecfrjd ‘among the logs skittered no roaches’ (Gogol). With p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l verbs -- verbs reporting phenomena that can be perceived -- the genitive is conceivable in an exercise of modifying lines of poetry: cdtxb yf cnjkt yt ujhtkj ‘there did not burn a candle on the table’; yt ,tkttn gfhecjd yf ujhbpjynt ‘there do not show white any sails on the horizon’.21

In practice the genitive with negated positional or phenomenological verbs is very infrequent. In one count only four examples were found among 198 tokens of negated verbs of position and motion, and no examples of genitive with negated phenomenological verbs (130 tokens) or negated activity verbs. By way of contrast, for the verbs listed in Table 5.6, the percentage of genitive was in the vicinity of two-thirds genitive under negation.22

The likelihood of using the genitive, then, depends in part on the semantics of the predicate. The genitive can be used most freely with verbs that report existence in a domain, where the fact of existence is the communicative force of the predicate. It is less likely with verbs that describe the manner of the activity, since attention to manner presupposes the existence and identity of the individual.

20 Paducheva 1997.

21 Paducheva 1997.

22 Robblee 1993[a]:222.