Slovak: Ovláda ešte ďalších sto rečí.

Concise

Senior Member
Hungarian
I read the sentence which is in the title.
A) “Ovláda ešte ďalších sto rečí.”
And it made me confused, I am not sure whether it is correct.

I think that “ovládať and its verbal forms require accusative.

So “sto” is the object, which should be in accusative form. Which is “sto” also.

Hence eg.
B) “Ovláda ešte sto ďalších rečí.”
would sound logical to me meaning “He speaks/possesses 100 of the other languagues”.

Or if I want to emphasize that he speaks X+100 languages as it was in the text I was reading, then after the knowledge of X languagues has been discussed maybe I should say
C) “Ovláda ešte ďalšie sto rečí.”
meaning “He speaks/possesses (additionally) 100 more of languagues”.

Certainly i googled some and it seems that the original sentence A) is a correct one, as is my first rephrased solution B), but somehow I feel unnatural to fabricate a sentence where the adjective of the “kind” being in genitive form precedes the quantity of 5-999999 being in accusative form, and the noun (=“kind”) being in genitive form succeds it. And sentence C) seems to be incorrect even if its structure is a logical one.

“Ovláda ešte ďalších sto rečí.” is correct, isnt it?
And if it is so then what is the logics behind to separate “ďalších” and “rečí”? Stress? Sounds better? :)
 
Last edited:
  • A) “Ovláda ešte ďalších sto rečí.” :tick:

    B) “Ovláda ešte sto ďalších rečí.” :tick:

    C) “Ovláda ešte ďalšie sto rečí.” :cross:
    I think that “ovládať and its verbal forms require accusative. :tick:
    [...]
    “Ovláda ešte ďalších sto rečí.” is correct, isnt it? :tick:
    And if it is so then what is the logics behind to separate “ďalších” and “rečí”? Stress? Sounds better? Both. Depending on the person and circumstances.
    ďalšie reči :tick:
    Ovláda ešte ďalšie reči. :tick: --> Čo ovláda? Reči (A). :tick: Aké reči? Ďalšie reči. :tick:
    ďalších rečí :tick:
    Ovláda ešte ďalších rečí. :cross: --> Čo ovláda? Rečí (G). :cross:
    Ovláda ešte sto rečí. :tick: ---> Čo ovláda? Sto <...>. Sto čoho? Sto rečí. :tick:
    Ovláda ešte ďalších sto rečí. :tick: ---> Čo ovláda? Sto <...>. Sto čoho? Sto rečí. Akých sto rečí? Ďalších sto rečí. :tick:
    Ovláda ešte sto ďalších rečí. ---> Čo ovláda? Sto <...>. Sto čoho? Sto rečí. Sto akých rečí? Sto ďalších rečí. :tick:
    Ovláda ešte niekoľko rečí. :tick:
    Ovláda ešte niekoľko sto rečí. :tick: (niekoľko sto = several hundred)
    Ovláda ešte sto niekoľko rečí. :cross:

    I, personally, wouldn't use reči in the context above. Jazyky would be the obvious choice for me.
     
    Last edited:
    Akých sto rečí? Ďalších sto rečí. :tick:

    Thanks for all the examples, but evidently this is the structure which disturbs me. Is “akých”placed in the front, simply because it is the interrogative, isnt it? So to stress it.

    Apart from this different word order the meaning remains that same “Sto [of] akých reči”. No confusion all.

    When we answer to this question “akých sto reči?” the normal/neutral word order would be still “sto [of] ďalšých reči”. Is this correct?

    Or not, because the word order of the question strictly defines the word order of the answer? So it is not the question of being neutral, but it is a sort of obbligation, hence the neutral answer has to be in the same word order that is “Ďalších sto rečí.”?

    —————————

    I guess my mind easily accepts that we move “ďalšých reči” and “akých reči” and put this phrase either before or after “sto”, but only these two words together.

    When we separate “ďalšých” and “reči”, for me there is an additional sort of confusion meaning the nice and clear relationship between the attribute in A and the possessor in G becomes unclear. It is clear that “ďalšie” is basically an adjective in plural, but I feel it can be used as a noun, too. A sort of confirmation: adjectival noun - Wiktionary

    So because the word order has been changed and there are two words in G, and they are NOT next to each other there are more interpretation is possible.

    Hence “ďalšých sto reči” can mean

    1. Sto [of] ďalšých reči.

    2. Sto [of] ďalšých [of] reči.

    3. Sto [of] reči [of] ďalšých.



    1. and 2. are practically the same in this case (a subset of set B with an explanatory adj A = a subset of set A of set B), but the meaning of 2. is different, because in the group of “ďalšie” there could be not just languages, but songs, poems etc, based on the preceding pieces of information.

    Either there is a big mistake in my way of thinking or there is some sort of extra help, which supports the reader/listener in interpretating this structure when the possessor with an adjective can be separated from its adjective, and the adjective of the possesor can precede the attribute not just in an interrogation, but in simple narrative/declarative sentences, too.

    ——————-
    Noted that jazyky is more natural in these sentences.
     
    When we answer to this question “akých sto reči?” the normal/neutral word order would be still “sto [of] ďalšých reči”. Is this correct? Yes and no. If "akých" was stressed enough, that would prompt many people to qualify "sto rečí" rather than just "rečí" so their answer would be "<...> sto rečí" rather than "sto <...> rečí."

    [...]

    When we separate “ďalších” and “rečí”, for me there is an additional sort of confusion meaning the nice and clear relationship between the attribute in A and the possessor in G becomes unclear. But wouldn't it be similar in English? You can say "other languages" but you can also quantify your answer and separate the first word from "languages" by inserting a numeral in between (e.g. "another hundred languages"). In a similar way, you can say "hundred other languages."

    So because the word order has been changed and there are two words in G, and they are NOT next to each other there are more interpretation is possible.

    Hence “ďalších sto rečí” can mean

    1. Sto [of] ďalších rečí.

    2. Sto [of] ďalších [of] rečí.

    3. Sto [of] rečí [of] ďalších.

    3. has a very unnatural word order so is not really an option (it would be similar to saying "hundred languages other"). The other two are a matter of perspective - if you view "other languages" as a single unit, then 1. is possible. If you view them as separate parts, then 2. would apply. Putting all that aside, would the meaning change? It would not, so I would not spend too much time analyzing those two, if I were you.

    1. and 2. are practically the same in this case (a subset of set B with an explanatory adj A = a subset of set A of set B), but the meaning of 2. is different, because in the group of “ďalšie” there could be not just languages, but songs, poems etc, based on the preceding pieces of information. There could be songs/poems/. . . after the word "other" but there are not so the meaning is the same.
    sto ďalších rečí = ďalších sto rečí
    Then, depending on the word that is stressed, two of the following meanings could, theoretically, be communicated:
    1. another hundred languages (in addition to the hundred already mentioned),
    2. hundred other languages (in addition to the x languages already mentioned)
     
    sto ďalších rečí = ďalších sto rečí
    Aha, so there is no difference at all even if the word order is different. Now, it is clear.

    From now on I take “ďalších sto rečí” and the that type of structures as a characteristic of Slovak, and put it in the same group where I placed “Aký je dnes deň?”. Normally I would say “Aký deň je dnes?”, but I learnt and accepted that this word order is not Slovak-liké Slovak prefers separating “aký” and “deň”.

    Ovláda ešte niekoľko sto rečí. :tick: (niekoľko sto = several hundred)
    Ovláda ešte sto niekoľko rečí. :cross:

    Btw am I right that both “Ovláda ešte sto niekoľkých rečí.” and “Ovláda ešte niekoľkých sto rečí.” would be syntactically correct?

    Even if semantically they are not, because “100 more from several languagues” sounds weird.
     
    From now on I take “ďalších sto rečí” and the that type of structures as a characteristic of Slovak, and put it in the same group where I placed “Aký je dnes deň?”. Normally I would say “Aký deň je dnes?”, but I learnt and accepted that this word order is not Slovak-liké Slovak prefers separating “aký” and “deň”.
    "Aký je dnes deň?" sounds, indeed, better to my ears but "Aký deň je dnes?" does not sound incorrect or utterly unidiomatic to me so it is possible too.
    Btw am I right that both “Ovláda ešte sto niekoľkých rečí.” and “Ovláda ešte niekoľkých sto rečí.” would be syntactically correct?

    Even if semantically they are not, because “100 more from several languagues” sounds weird.
    Your two sentences are correct in that the word "niekoľkých" is in the correct form (provided that your intention was to qualify "rečí" or "sto rečí"). Meaning-wise, they don't make any sense as you cannot say "hundred several languages" (and it would also prove to be very difficult to justify the case of treating "sto rečí" as a single unit) as you either have "hundred languages" or "several languages" but you cannot have "hundred several" as those two, when paired together, would produce a conflicting result and you would have your listener scratching their head. In other words, "niekoľký" must qualify "sto" rather than "rečí" (or "sto rečí") which is why it needs to become "niekoľko" to produce a meaningful and idiomatic sentence.
     
    I think that “ovládať and its verbal forms require accusative.
    So “sto” is the object, which should be in accusative form. Which is “sto” also.
    You are right.

    Hence eg.
    B) “Ovláda ešte sto ďalších rečí.”
    would sound logical to me meaning “He speaks/possesses 100 of the other languagues”.
    The meaning of "ešte sto ďalších rečí" is rather "yet a 100 other languages" or in Hungarian "még száz további nyelvet".

    In my opinion the substance is as follows:

    ovláda jednu reč ("reč" is in accusative singular)
    ovláda dve reči ("reč" is inaccusative plural)
    ovláda tri reči ("reč" is inaccusative plural)
    ovláda štyri reči ("reč" is inaccusative plural)

    ******************************
    ovláda päť rečí ("reč" is in genitive plural)
    ovláda dvanásť rečí ("reč" is in genitive plural)
    ovláda sto rečí ("reč" is in genitive plural)
    etc.

    The "trick" is that for etymological reasons in (most of) Slavic languages the numbers above 4 behave grammatically as nouns.

    Thus the construction "ovláda sto rečí" is the same as e.g. in case of "ovláda množstvo rečí" (= a plenty of languages). Both sto and množstvo are grammatically in accusative, but they require the genitive plural (sto/množstvo rečí, jazykov, ľudí, kníh ...).

    "Ďalších" in your example is the attribute of "reč" (not of "sto"), so it is also in genitive plural.
     
    Ďalších" in your example is the attribute of "reč" (not of "sto"), so it is also in genitive plural.

    I guess I communicated in a wrong way. The major part of your answer and that of Morior_invictus’ replies had been perfectly clear to me.

    My point was simply that the liberty of moving “ďalších” before “sto” was a bit suspicious for me, and just because “ďalších” is an attribute of “reč” .

    Moreover I felt that “ďalších” could be interpreted not just as a qualitative attribute of “reč”, but as an adjectival noun it could theoratically have a second role: being a noun which quantitative attribute is “sto”.

    This was the reason why I was discussing sets and subsets above.

    But finally I understood it could be NOT interpreted as a(n adjectival) noun, so there was zero chance of confusion deriving from the pure fact that it was moved from after “sto” to before “sto”.
     
    Back
    Top