2

Q1) Извини, что пришлось тащить тебя с собой, не дав даже отдохнуть как следует.

To express the idea of "letting/allowing you (to) do something", you usually put an accusative pronoun. So I wonder why it is missing here. Is it because the preceding clause already has "тебя"?

Q2) Извини, что пришлось тащить тебя с собой, не дав даже отдохнуть как следует.

I have no qualms about the verb "прийтись" per se not always being accompanied by a dative pronoun. You can easily assume that "(мне) пришлось" is omitted here.

But given the presence of the reflexive pronoun "собой = мной", I wonder if it isn't necessary to place some subject marker -- in this instance: "мне" -- before the "собой" in order to make perfectly clear to whom the reflexive "собой" refers?

Improve this question
1
  • Please ask one question per post. This will make everyone's life a bit easier. :)
    – Sergey Slepov
    Jun 11, 2018 at 14:35

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

So I wonder why it is missing here. Is it because the preceding clause already has "тебя"?

Yes, using тебя in the preceding clause made the implied pronoun obvious from the context.

In this case the context is made clear by the previous usage of the pronoun, but it does not have to be this way. You can say дайте, пожалуйста, пройти without using мне, and the meaning is still clear.

I wonder if it isn't necessary to place some subject marker -- in this instance: "мне" -- before the "собой" in order to make perfectly clear to whom the reflexive "собой" refers?

The reflexive pronoun себя always refers to the last agent in the clause, which is the implied мне or нам (note that мне or нам are grammatical objects but semantic agents here).

The first person is implied by semantics of the sentence (the usage of извини and the meaining of тащить с собой rule out second and third persons). The number is unclear, though.

However, in context, other persons can be implied as well in similar constructs. For instance:

  • Пришлось нести всё это к себе

requires context to understand, and depending on the context, it could mean

  • I had to bring this all to my place
  • You had to bring this all to your place
  • He had to bring this all to his place

etc., but one thing stays the same: the one who had to bring all this was the owner of the place where they brought it.

Improve this answer
8
  • The number is unclear, though. - would it be plural then it would more idiomatically be "тащить тебя с нами" instead of "с собой". While "с собой" would be grammatically correct for plural too, I would not expect it be used often. Unless there is a clear context with plural "we" in some prior phrase. Like "Нашему классу приказали ехать всем вместе. Почему и пришлось тащить тебя с собой". Still "с нами" would sound better.
    – Arioch
    Jun 18, 2018 at 11:00
  • However without such an explicit immediately present context - thus without the agent fixed yet - the "c cобой" would refer to the person being speaking - the speaker is "the last agent" who is "put to the stack" before the phrase itself starts.
    – Arioch
    Jun 18, 2018 at 11:07
  • @Arioch: parents about a kid: его было не с кем оставить, поэтому нам пришлось тащить его с собой. What exactly do you think is wrong or even peculiar in this phrase?
    – Quassnoi ♦
    Jun 18, 2018 at 11:20
  • Нам - семье, чете - пришлось тащить его с собой. Here the agent is singular (though consisting of multiple people). Same for school class in my example. Also, "нам ... с нами" would be tautological. So in this your example "c собой" was used to avoid the tautology. Also in this situation both spouses had obviously the same understanding of the situation, so there was no difference between them both together or any one of them taking the kid along. I am trying to imagine a divisive, controversial situation, where "taking along" would be a questionable decision....
    – Arioch
    Jun 18, 2018 at 11:29
  • ....thus who made that decision would be important, "we" or "me" or "she". I'd expect in such a context "с собой/с нами" choice would bear more value. If anything, because people with so different opinions would be less of a "single homogeneous agent" than above.
    – Arioch
    Jun 18, 2018 at 11:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.