You are able to count up to three? You such a fewBusiness was in the student`s hostel. I came to classmates, we about something began to argue. the Girl threatened
- We are three!
Having settled arguments, she took in head to frighten of a superiority in strength: a pier, will beat. I objected:
- You are three. If you were three, I still would think.
Polemic also came to an end in that. We studied at faculty of Russian therefore we understood each other. Two, three, four etc. - it is so possible to tell about males or about the mixed group. And about women - two, three, four. At the same time and in a subject in which did not agree my victory became obvious: time I am more competent, of course, is right. And everything, any fight with application of improvised objects. The reference to grammar - and “war“ did not take place.
But how “Three athletes“ (Vasnetsov`s picture)? Or novel “Three Musketeers“. Song “Three Tankmen“. Yes here - the fact that the masculine gender allows itself both forms. And “Three maidens under a window“ cannot be replaced on “Three maidens“.
But women once had additional option. At the same Pushkin: “Neither fire, nor black hut. Solitude and snow … Towards to me only versts of a polosata come across one“. It about milestones. If he and wrote - “columns“, then there would be “one“. But as the word of a feminine gender, “one“ is used. Now this form is abolished.
Of similar surgical removals it is full in the history of language. Threw out - and the head does not hurt, it is not necessary to think what termination is correct. Even literacy of the population because it became impossible to be mistaken as if increased. Only it is a way to the deadlock, to destruction of language. And poor students, let will not disappear though there will be one hundred words with one rule.
To the word about a surprising stroke from those which interfere with the foreigner in perfection to learn our language. Whether there can be one subject in plural? Let`s tell, for the stranger, it seems, the complete nonsense: the cow one, but is a lot of her pieces. And it is quite habitual to us to use the word “one“ in plural: in herd one cows, in salad one tomatoes.
Somehow time from the TV news sounded: three banks will develop and form the fourth. The leader read: “Everyone will bring fifty one percent“. Yes the last drunkard never suggested “to chip in together on one rup“! But she in such look repeated the message all day, besides not in record (releases were different). And nobody prompted to it, it did not appear on television competent. Nowadays she behaves the program of a name.
It is constantly heard from screens and from where it is necessary: “I will tell a couple of words“, “Wait a couple of minutes“. Couples of words are really possible: for example, “to shine - to shine“. But another means absolutely: will tell a little, wait not for long. Expressions so became familiar that and it is awkward to remind: they are senseless. A married couple - it is clear, the husband and the wife really make couple. Two boots on different legs - too couple. “Couple bay, harnessed with a dawn …“ - two horses are harnessed together differently. But who observed the minutes walking in couples and what two sexual or other distinction between them? What means “In the room of steam of chairs“ - one of them the man, another the aunt? Meanwhile reference books began to allow such use in informal conversation. It is clear, that will be legalized then also for literary.
And in the 19th century there was other stamp - “two - three chairs“. At mediocre writers it continually. I do not know whether he is marked out by literary critics, but irritated me: really it is not visible, two or three? “Two - three hours“ are still fine - the same sense that “about two and a half“. And from the room where “two - three chairs“ to take out one - there will be one and a half, perhaps?
Everything that I wrote here, is connected with the account. At the same time - about the word “account“. Or rather, about expression “for the account“., It seems, it is absolutely clear: for example, if a lunch for someone else`s account, then someone pays another. But how then to understand formulations frequent nowadays like “Implemented the plan due to introduction of new equipment“? It turns out, did not begin to spend forces for introduction therefore managed to execute. However it is offered to understand just the opposite: introduction helped. The same: “Overcame difficulties due to mutual assistance“. Then spat at each other and coped one by one?
It would seem, the speech only about language. No. About life. And in general about everything. The abroad sneers that Russia is able nothing, only oil to swing. Other does somehow, “and so will descend“. Including we speak approximately, sometimes “exactly the opposite“. And any idea, a hypothesis, research, business begin with the word. The principle is known to scientists: it is correct to formulate a task - means half to solve it. If from the first step went not to that party - you will not come where wanted.
Perhaps, I as the philologist, I exaggerate value of the subject (that is peculiar to specialists of all branches). But hardly anyone - nibud will object against language - a basis of any activity. It is impossible to construct the rocket, to bring up the champion, to discover Novaya Zemlya … well, nothing acceptable can be made without communication. And its tool - language. Who speaks faultlessly, that both thinks clearly, and works accurately. Let`s imagine that all suddenly became excellent students on Russian, write competently, formulate perfectly. And then it will be difficult to imagine that drive marriage. And mathematical - that words first of all should be used precisely.
It is known that at the beginning there was a Word. It both now, and always at the beginning of everything.