Incorrect word agreement. Features of agreement in Russian

Home the norm of agreement in Russian is an agreement of the subject with the predicate in a sentence ( Sun is up. Roosters crowed.), as well as agreement of the determined with the main word in the phrase ( Red Apple, wooden table ). But the Russian language is very multifaceted, so sometimes it is quite difficult to determine the dependent form. To do this, you need to know about some rules.

1. In official speech, the semantic replacement of agreement is considered incorrect in cases where the noun male, denoting a profession or occupation, agrees with the verb in the feminine gender (if the person who names the noun is a feminine person):

The doctor entered the room (not corr.). - Doctor Tikhonova entered the ward (corr.).

As we can see, only if there is a proper name indicating belonging to the feminine gender, the predicate is consistent with the proper name in the feminine gender. The same thing happens in the presence of a stand-alone application, which is expressed by a common noun:

Alyona, my curator, today I could not come to class.

2. At the same time, in other phrases like "common + own"(names of cities, rivers, countries, names of animals, etc.) the predicate is consistent with the common noun:

Hero City Moscow these days looked pretty gloomy. kitty Cherry had white nose and funny tassels on the ears.

3. Phrases with collective nouns require agreement in the singular, without any exceptions. Semantic agreement in this case is a case of vernacular and is categorically not allowed.

The crowd of people were noisy and worried (nekorr.). - The crowd of people was noisy and worried (corr.).

The bride's relatives did not like the groom very much (corr.) - The bride's relatives did not really love the groom (corr.).

Agreement with the pronoun "who", "what".

Pronouns "who" ("someone") and "what" ("something") by default require singular agreement: who- male, what- average.

Whoever came in to the room, everyone praised the new renovation.

Something light and bright settled in her soul.

Agreement with words of a different gender and number possible only if used with a qualifying pronoun "that" (that, then, those):

Those who came to a meeting received a lot of pleasant impressions.

The one that was me, for a long time has changed and became another.

Coordination of nouns associated with the numerals "two", "three", "four", with definitions.

1. Nouns masculine and neuter in such phrases consistent with the definition in the genitive plural. In this case, the noun in such a phrase will be in the form of the genitive case: two open windows, four small cucumbers.

2. Nouns the feminine in this case takes the form of the nominative plural, and agrees with the definition in the same form: three green birches, two huge parcels. If the noun takes the genitive plural form, then the attribute can also take the genitive form:

From the hillside one could see two snow-covered tops.

As you can see, in each of these cases the numeral is in the nominative case, regardless of the case in which the other parts of the phrase are.

Agreement between the predicate and the subject, which is a collective quantity (“most”, “half”, “row”, “part”).

1. If the controlled word is in the plural, then the collective noun comes into agreement with the predicate, as a result of which the predicate is used in the form of a singular person: Most employees supported reform.
2. If the noun does not have controlled words or the existing controlled word is in the singular, then the predicate is also used in the singular person: A number of symptoms pointed out for pneumonia. Majority supported lifting of sanctions.

From this rule, there are several exceptions when the predicate can be used in the plural:

• If a noun has several controlled words in the plural form at once: Most girls, girls and women adore sweets.
• If there are other members of the sentence between the subject and the predicate, subordinate clause with a plural conjunction or participial: Some of the visitors who watched the premiere stayed frankly dissatisfied. Most of the visitors who watched the premiere stayed frankly dissatisfied.
• If the sentence contains a compound nominal predicate, the nominal part of which is expressed by participles and adjectives: Part of the trees in this forest were coniferous.
• If along with the subject there are homogeneous predicates: A number of symptoms aggravated and become much sharper.

The same rules apply to sentences with the words "many", "few", "how many", "several", "so many", "many" as the subject and agreement with the predicate.

Grammar agreement the defined word with the main word in the phrase (great success, great luck) and the predicate with the subject (Father said, Mother said) is the norm of the Russian language.

But in some cases, the choice of a dependent form causes difficulties and requires taking into account a number of conditions.

1. In colloquial speech frequency use of semantic (rather than grammatical) agreement with masculine nouns characterizing females.

The professor said; The doctor came; The director of the lyceum resigned.

However, in official speech, the replacement of grammatical agreement by semantic is not allowed, except in cases where such a noun carries a proper name.

Let's give an example: doctor Petrov. In such constructions, the definition and the predicate agree with the nearest noun.

Let's give an example: An experienced doctor Ivanova is attentive to her patients.
A participle definition always agrees with a proper name.
For example: Doctor Ivanova entered the ward.

If the subject is given name- has a separate application, expressed by a common noun, then the predicate is consistent with the subject:

Let's give an example: Galina Petrovna, a chemistry teacher, fell ill.

With collective nouns in the modern Russian literary language, semantic agreement (The brothers did not love him; Youth gathered in the cinema) is not allowed.
The only norm is the singular form: The brothers did not love him; The youth gathered in the cinema;

Matching features:

Usually, semantic agreement is not allowed with the pronouns what, who, as well as derivatives from them (someone, someone and others).
Regardless of the situation actually expressed, the pronoun who requires a predicate and definition in the singular masculine form, and the pronoun what - in the singular neuter:

This was done by someone who had been here before;
Some of us have made this mistake;
Something small and light lay in the far corner of the hall.

With the subject who, the plural of the predicate can be used when in the subordinate clause the nominal part of the compound predicate is expressed by the noun in the plural:

Those who twenty years ago were schoolchildren now decide the fate of the country.

The plural of the predicate with a pronoun that is usually used only in type constructions: everything that ...; those that...

Those that fell behind did not lose hope of catching up with the vanguard.

2. Agreement of definitions with nouns, depending on the numerals two, three, four, obeys the following rules.

With masculine and neuter nouns, definitions are used in the form of the genitive plural (the noun in this case is in the genitive case).
For example: three small windows, four large chairs,

With feminine nouns, the definition is put in the nominative plural form (the noun in this case also stands in the nominative plural form).
For example: three small vases.

If a feminine noun is in the genitive singular form, then the definition can also be put in the genitive form, but plural.
For example: three tall trees.

A definition before a numeral or a separate definition is placed in the nominative case, regardless of the gender of the noun:

Here's an example:
large three tables;
Three letters written by my sister alarmed me.
four oil paintings hung on the wall;

The exception is adjectives whole, full, kind, which usually stand in the genitive case and before the numeral (for two whole weeks, three full months), although the use of the nominative case is very common in live speech.

Agreement of the predicate with the subject, a pronounced noun with a collective quantitative meaning (part, majority, series, and so on), is determined by the following factors.

If the noun does not have controlled words with it or the controlled word is in the singular, then the predicate is used in the singular:

The majority of the team supported the coach;
The majority supported the speaker.

If the controlled word is in the plural, then the predicate, as a rule, agrees with the collective noun and is put in the singular:

Most of the employees supported the boss.

The plural predicate is usually used in such cases:

A) between the subject and the predicate there are other members of the sentence, especially the participial turnover with the participle in the plural, the subordinate clause with the allied word which is in the plural.
Here's an example:
Most of the critics who saw the film praised the director's work very highly;
Most of the critics who saw the film praised the director's work very highly;

B) with a noun there are several controlled forms in the plural:

Most of the engineers, workers and employees of the plant supported the boss;

C) with the subject there are homogeneous predicates:

Most of the students passed the tests and prepared well for the exams;

D) the sentence uses a compound nominal predicate, and the nominal part is expressed by adjectives and participles:

Most of the children were smart and cheerful; Most of the houses on this street are wooden.

4. The same system of factors determines the agreement of the predicate with the subject, a pronounced quantitative-nominal combination (three sisters, thirty-four chairs, etc.), that is, a combination of a numeral with the genitive case of a noun. The main norm is the statement of the predicate in the singular:

Five fighters went to divorce;
Seven matches won.

In Russian, there are difficulties associated with solving the question of how to agree on the members of a sentence in gender, number and case. How to write:

"The majority voted against"? Is it grammatical agreement? Or agree on the meaning: "The majority voted against." Or how to say correctly: “our director of the enterprise Kulikova” or “our director of the enterprise Kulikov”?

Approval rules. 1. If the subject is used with words majority, minority, multitude, number, part, many, many, several, then the predicate is put in the singular form if it is an inanimate noun or if the predicate is next to the previously indicated words. For instance: “A number of project proposals are not supported by the necessary calculations”(a series of sentences is an inanimate noun) or "Most voted against"(the predicate is next to the word "most").

If the predicate is significantly removed from the subject, but the author wants to emphasize the animation of the main noun, then the plural form is used: “ Most of the participants of the All-Russian Conference on Ecology voted against"(noun participants - animated and it is significantly removed from the word majority).

• 2. If the definition refers to a noun that has an application, then it agrees with the main word of the combination. The main word in such combinations usually comes first. For instance: new laboratory car’, a unique museum-apartment”, a famous female surgeon.
• 3. If the definition refers to a combination of a personal name and an application, the definition usually agrees with the nearest noun. For instance: your plant manager Ivanova N.P.; our foreman Petrova", senior engineer Yakovleva ', Serov's new laboratory assistant.

A deviation from this rule is observed in cases where the definition is expressed by a participle. For instance: who spoke at the meeting, Deputy Dean for scientific work Associate Professor Sidorova; who took part in the development of the project, senior researcher Alekseeva.

• 4. If the definition refers to the combination of a noun with numerals two three four, then it is usually put in the genitive case when referring to masculine words, and in the nominative case when referring to feminine words. For instance: two staff members(Genitive); three young professionals(Genitive); two new employees(Nominative case).
• 5. If we are talking about coordinating a geographical name with generic names, then, in contrast to the general literary use in the language of documents, usually the names of cities, villages, villages, stations, etc. do not change and do not agree with the generic names. For instance: in the city of Tula; in the village of Pushkino; on the Volga river; at Lugovaya station.

Incorrect word order in a sentence. As you know, in Russian there is a free word order in a sentence. This means that the members of the proposal do not have their permanent place. Their mutual arrangement depends on the type of sentence and on the desire of the speaker or writer to emphasize the semantic significance of a particular word. However, it should be remembered that the freedom of word order in a sentence is relative. An unjustified or ill-conceived change in word order is perceived as a mistake. In an official business speech due to a violation correct order words are difficult to establish who(or what) is the subject of action.

Wrong Correct

A city with a population of 200,000 The new plant is fully

Poliostyo will provide dairy chit dairy products to the city with new factory products. with a population of 200 thousand.

V this case the subject of the action is the plant, so the word factory should be at the beginning of the sentence.

Important to remember

In the language of the document, only direct word order (first subject, then predicate) provides adequate understanding of the sentence.

In Russian written speech, the informational role of word order increases towards the end of the phrase, and any rearrangement of words changes the meaning of the sentence.

Let's look at three examples.

• 1. All shortcomings should be eliminated as soon as possible.
• 2. All shortcomings should be eliminated in the nearest future.
• 3. In the near future, all shortcomings should be eliminated.

The first sentence refers to the time during which

deficiencies must be corrected; the second states what must be eliminated; the third indicates what should be done in the near future. A certain word order allows you to change the semantic accents.

Sometimes the broken word order creates the possibility of double interpretation, which is unacceptable in the language of documents.

Not properly

To determine the payment fund at the end of the year, prices for products are specified.

Right

To determine the payment fund, prices for products are specified at the end of the year.

In the left sentence, it is not clear what the words refer to at the end of the year. May be, rates specified at the end of the year or payment fund determination at the end of the year. phrase at the end of the year must be moved, and then the sentence will have only one meaning.

He filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York against the auction house Sotheby's, accusing him of complicity in the "biggest fraud in the history of art" committed by the Swiss art dealer Yves Bouvier. The billionaire demanded compensation from the auction house in the amount of $ 380 million, which makes one of the largest litigation in art history.

However, in this case, it is not so much the size of the claims that is interesting, but the fact itself: there is more and more news about lawsuits in the field of art. The world of the art market has always been considered very closed. In an effort to maintain confidentiality as much as possible, participants in the art market did not take their conflicts into the public field, especially to the courts. Obviously, the situation began to change: being in the "twilight" ceased to suit the participants of the art market.

One of the first high-profile scandals erupted at the end of 2009, when the Aurora Fine Arts Investment fund of another Russian billionaire, Viktor Vekselberg, filed a lawsuit against Christie's auction house in connection with the sale of a fake painting by Boris Kustodiev to him. Five years before, the fund acquired at the London auction of Christie's Kustodiev's painting "Odalisque" for £1.7 million ($2.9 million), which was a world auction record for a painting by this artist. A year later, Aurora told Christie's that the purchased painting was a fake. In 2009, the painting was published under the auspices of the Rosokhrankultura "Catalogue of forgeries of paintings". The auction house Christie's conducted a series of its own examinations, but was in no hurry to resolve the issue. And when the five-year period of responsibility of the auction house for the authenticity of the lot came to an end, the fund filed a lawsuit In 2012, the court, based on the conclusions of three authoritative expert centers - the All-Russian Artistic Research and Restoration Center named after Grabar, the Russian Museum and the Tretyakov Gallery - found that the painting is not an original and awarded the plaintiff the full cost of the painting and compensation for moral damages.

In 2012, American billionaire Ronald Perelman filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court against the famous art dealer Larry Gagosian. For almost 20 years, Perelman and Gagosyan were close friends, jointly owned a restaurant. The dealer was the main adviser to the billionaire when concluding transactions for the purchase of a dozen works of art on total amount in $45 million. But Perelman said in 2012 that Gagosian, using his authority as the world's leading art dealer, manipulated the prices of works of art, hiding from him essential information on transactions. In December 2014, the court dismissed the billionaire's claim, finding the charges unproven. “Art is such a beautiful thing. And all this is overshadowed by dirty business. This needs to be fixed,” the billionaire told the NewYorkTimes about the lawsuit with Gagosian.

In 2015, Dmitry Rybolovlev had a similar conflict with his consultant, art dealer Yves Bouvier. As a result, the billionaire initiated legal proceedings in different jurisdictions (Monaco, Singapore, France), accusing the art dealer of having overpaid more than $1 billion for paintings purchased through his mediation. The lawsuits are still ongoing. Perhaps the current high-profile lawsuit against Sotheby’s is not so much an attempt to obtain compensation of $ 380 million from the auction house as part of a judicial strategy: in theory, a new trial can be used to obtain new evidence in claims against Bouvier.

Litigation on transactions in the art market is becoming more and more, almost all of them are quite loud. Responding to a new need, this year a special court was created in The Hague to resolve disputes in this area - the Court of Arbitration for Art (CAA). The court hears disputes about fraud in the art market, contracts, restitution, property rights and other issues with the involvement of experts in specialized fields. It is noteworthy that confidentiality, which is so important for the participants in the process, is preserved: all decisions made are published without disclosing names. The creation of such a court in Russia is a matter of the distant future, because the “right to objects of art”, which abroad has already been singled out as a separate legal discipline, is just beginning to take shape in our country, as well as judicial practice in such cases.

In 2016, our bar association represented the interests of the Russian Ministry of Culture in a lawsuit against the English publishing house Antique Collector’s Club and the English art historian Anthony Parton, who wrote a book about the work of avant-garde artists Natalia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov. The subject of the lawsuit was a ban on the publication and distribution in Russia of this book with a reproduction of a fake painting by Mikhail Larionov. One of the favorite ways to legalize art objects, the authenticity of which is in doubt, is just the publication of catalogs and monographs, as well as the organization of exhibitions where fakes are presented. In these cases, legalization occurs through the "official recognition" of the counterfeit art. After all, this subject gets into newspaper and magazine publications, into specialized publications, and then into books dedicated to the artist's work. In books and catalogues, reproductions of dubious paintings are successfully mixed with reproductions of standard art objects taken from famous museums. High-profile cases include the story of paintings by Amedeo Modigliani, included in the catalogs of Christian Parisot, and Natalia Goncharova, included in the catalog of Denise Bazeto.

In Parton's book on Goncharova, most of the reproductions of the reference paintings were published with the permission of Russian museums. But there were also reproductions of paintings that no one had seen before with the note “private collection”. The Ministry of Culture of Russia called the appearance of such works in serious books an attempt to throw on the market works allegedly by Goncharova. In addition to the fact that the publication of reproductions of fake paintings misleads the collectors who acquire them, they distort the general idea of ​​the artist's work.

Winning such processes is not easy. In the case of the catalog of Goncharova and Larionov, it was necessary to involve great amount experts, including representatives of the chemical and photo laboratory of the ECC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, art critics from the Tretyakov Gallery, to collect evidence in archives and museums. In the end, the court granted our claim. And the main participants in the process - the publishing house Antique Collector's Club and the author of the book Anthony Parton - even during the process agreed to withdraw the book from sale in Russia and exclude illustrations of dubious paintings from its reprint.

But this is a one-time thing judicial practice there are very few in Russia on resolving disputes in the field of art objects. Perhaps this is due to the fact that we still do not have sufficient legal guarantees to protect the acquirer and owner of the art object, in connection with which transactions with these objects are transferred to foreign jurisdictions. Russian regulations do not contain the basic principles for the evaluation and examination of art objects, their insurance, export and import outside the country. There are also no special, proven institutions and organizations that would take on part of the risks associated with the organization and execution of a transaction, the authentication of an object. Therefore, foreign experience, in particular, the consideration by the courts of such cases as Rybolovlev against Sotheby's and Bouvier, is extremely interesting for Russia.

Agreement is the likening of the forms of the gender, number, case of the adjective to the forms of the dominant noun: from the dark forest, to dark woods, to the dark forest. The forms of participles, ordinal numbers, pronouns-adjectives are also likened to a noun: sleeping beauty, in the first place, in the other direction, in my house. Cardinal numbers agree only in indirect cases (except for V. p.): two steps away, from three houses, with four trees (these numbers have no gender and number!); but: one ticket, one place, one book, one hand, one sleigh - in all cases.

Similarly, dependent word forms agree with adjectives and participles that have passed into nouns or used in the meaning of nouns: an extra comma, an extra comma; student canteen, student canteen; first vacationers, first vacationers; my beloved, my beloved; your relatives, your relatives; all superfluous, all superfluous; the first person you meet, etc. With unchangeable words used in the sense of a noun, agreed word forms are used in the middle gender: thunderous cheers, long-awaited tomorrow; with the help of these agreed word forms, the case is also indicated: with a thunderous cheer, long-awaited tomorrow. Such an agreement is “conditional”, since the main words cheers, tomorrow (interjection, adverb) have no gender and case. Do not confuse with these cases adjective and pronoun agreement with indeclinable nouns (they have a gender!): reliable subway, information desk, beautiful lady, my Mary, etc.

According to special rules, dependent adjectives, etc., agree with noun pronouns that indicate a person or object. Personal pronouns, except for he (she, it), do not have gender, therefore, in those rare cases when they are the main member of the phrase, the gender form of the adjective, etc. is chosen depending on the gender of the person indicated by the pronoun I, you; for example: I am all, I am all; you are all, you are all [You are all age-old languor (N.)]; you are the first, I am the first, etc. (see also the agreement of the predicate with the subject, the expressed personal pronoun I, you). Wed special agreement with you and you as a form of polite address, adjectives, etc. are used in the middle gender: polite you, familiar you; for example: She, having spoken, replaced the empty you with the heart, and aroused all the happy dreams in the soul of the lover (P.).

The pronouns who, what and all derivatives of them - nobody, nothing, someone, something, someone, something, etc. have no gender. The agreement with them of adjectives and others by gender is conditional: with who and others they are used in the masculine gender, and with what and others - in the middle: who is the first, what is important, something unusual; for example: Someone secretly filled my eyes with a quiet light (EU).

It must be borne in mind that not all forms of the adjective are associated in the phrase with the main word form of the noun according to the method of agreement. The form of the comparative degree of qualitative adjectives (simple) does not change either by gender, or by numbers, or by cases. As a dependent member of a phrase with a noun, it is connected by the adjunction method; for example: Nalymov took a room cheaper (A. T.) - in the phrase a room is cheaper, the connection is adjoining; cf .: cheap room - agreement.

Modern Russian literary language/ Ed. P. A. Lekanta - M., 2009