Ptát se/zeptat se take the genitive, why??

I'm shocked that so many of you know the terms accusative & genitive. When I ask my husband for help and I use those terms, he doesn't have a clue. I have to say "pad ctyri" nebo "pad dva".

 

Great topic everyone! Very informative! I'm amazed at the wealth of knowledge here. Whenever my Ukrainian officemate asks me about an English grammatical form, I'm usually limited to saying that a given form sounds better, rather than pointing out a grammatical rule.

 

We use rather the ordinals than the cardinals: "druhý pád", "čtvrtý pád".

The numbering of the cases is used in the Czech elementary schools. But if your husband learned English in school he would have to know the term genitive at least (like in Saxon genitive).

 

Your husband is in same club like I am. :twisted:


nominativ (kdo, co?)
genitiv (koho, čeho?)
dativ (komu, čemu?)
akuzativ (koho, co?)
vokativ (oslovení)
lokál (o kom, o čem?)
instrumentál (kým, čím?)
... I've got prepared this horse .... if I want to survive here :wink: :wink:

 

Genitive of negation (which is considered also a genitive of separation about which I talked) is very archaic. I admit, it is still allowed, but in spoken standard (codified) Czech, it sounds very... unusual. To speak the truth, I do use it sometimes, but my Czech is considered sometimes very very archaic by those around me... and I must admit, I do it partially on purpose. But for a foreigner... it would sound really ridiculous. Imagine a foreigner with bad accent (no offense, but I have not met a foreigner learning Czech with accent that would not give him up), from time to time mistakes in declension, using genitive of negation and speaking archaicly... No, that cannot be.

To the word "chléb" I decided to write down the whole paradigm because the discussion became quite messy:
sg.
1. chléb/chleba
2. chleba
3. chlebu
4. chléb/chleba
5. chleba! (not really used)
6. chlebu
7. chlebem
pl.
1. chleby
2. chlebů
3. chlebům
4. chleby
5. chleby! (not used as well)
6. chlebech
7. chleby

Conclusion: For the purpose of inflection, the base form is "chléb" (from this form every other is derived). But in spoken, the forms of nominative and accusative may be "(ten) chleba" (the same as the genitive because it is a reminiscent of the genitive of partition).
I would like also to highlight, that even though the form of nominative and accusative may be the same as the one of the genitive, concerning the congrunce, any other developping words are in an appropriate case:

nominative: dobrý chléb/dobrý chleba (NOT: dobrého chleba)
genitive: dobrého chleba
accusative: dobrý chléb/dobrý chleba (NOT: dobrého chleba)

This proves my thesis that it is only a reminiscent (genitive of partition is not really used) because one may say "ukrojím si dobrého chleba" but it sounds strange to me... I would rather say "ukrojím si dobrý chleba".

 

Not used as it is wrong. Chlebe! is correct! 8)

One question: How you can decide what is really in usage?

See the following sentence, please:

Ty, Chlebe věčného života, nasycuj člověka hladovějícího po pravdě, ...

From Radio Vatican.

 

Wow, I never thought I'd hear someone speak to their bread, but then again, I wasn't thinking in this context.

 

I "decided" to create my own paradigm of chléb.

sing.
1. chléb
2. chleba
3. chlebu
4. chléb
5. chlebe!
6. (o) chlebu (chlebě)
7. chlebem

plur.
1. chleby (chlebové)
2. chlebů
3. chlebům
4. chleby
5. chleby! chlebové!
6. (o) chlebech (chlebích)
7. chleby (colloq. chlebama)

And I do not want to hear that the form "chlebové" is not in usage.

 

Hmm..., I thought the ending -ové in plural nominative was reserved for masculine animate nouns. Is their a rule that chlebové follows (or other such words that follow this pattern)?

 

Yes, chlebové is animate.

moji čerství chlebové! :lol:

similarly

Hrobové se otevřeli.
Dnové se krátili.
Již staří národové ...
...

 

I decide it as a native speaker of Czech with linguistic education and higher-than-average sense for language, dwelling in educated Czech environment. The examples you gave are misleading as they come from poetic usage of ecclesiastic environment (translation of the pope's message Urbi et orbi), i.e. not standard linguistic environment.

Vocative form "chlebe!" is fully acceptable to me, even though I have never heard it except of the example given by you (nor have I ever heard anyone addressing a bread with the form I gave, which in fact makes the form you mentioned more used than the form I used)), but "chlebové" is unaccaptable. It can be used on very special occasions but never as an unmarked form and as it can be confusing for foreigners learning the Czech language, I recommend you not to persist on your claim because neither of us wants any of those few who learn our beautiful-and-oh-so-superior language to be publicly derided having said "dva chlebové".

 

Shame on me. Fool me six billion times, call me a Republican senator.


I am merely a poor programmer.

 

Senator, hell. You could be president! The party is looking for a new candidate now, and if they'd change the Constitution for Ah-nold, surely they'd change it for you. :wink:

 

My husband learned Russian in school. (Communism)

 

It is an animatized form (Does this word exist in English? Animatize as make animate?). Every inanimate masculine could be animatized, but nowadays it is out of common use. Formerly it was almost obligatory when attributing an animate characteristic to something inanimate.
E.g. a speech is an animate characteristic, therefor stromové mluvili was used instead of stromy mluvily.

BTW, Zeisig, you can animatize even the singular (accusative chleba as pána), right?

 

" - Pane Chlebe ! Nechte me vam ochutnat s polivkou ! "

Hehehe

 

Aha! That makes sense now. Thanks!

 

And correctly it is "to animate" and "animated", not "to animatise" :lol:

 

Natch! 8) I had a presentiment there is something simple behind it :lol:. One word for both adjective and verb - what a terrible language English is! :roll:

 

Cases!!! I killed myself getting to grips with these :? I have, however, created tables for each of the cases that show how noun endings (masculine animate, masculine imamate, female, neuter, hard and soft) are declined. I’ll be happy to share these with whomever. Just ask