When asked how to correctly say: “I live in the city of Moscow or Moscow,” one resourceful boy answered: “In Moscow.” This could close the question, but then we will never learn about the norms of using generic words in Russian.
What are generic words
In the language there are generic relations. The genus is wider and includes several species. For example, fruit is a generic word, and apple, pear, peach are species. Otherwise, the generic word can be called generalizing. There is a whole hierarchy of generic and specific words. For example, trees are a species in relation to plants, conifers in relation to trees, and spruce, pine, fir in relation to coniferous trees. So you can build a whole pyramid. When are generic words used together with specific? Not always. We do not say “fruit apple” and “birch tree”. That would be just ridiculous! By the way, N. Zabolotsky takes advantage of this comic effect: “The potato plant sleeps,” “The animal spider sleeps.”
But sometimes the use of a generic word together with a generic one is quite appropriate and does not cause bewilderment. If the species word is little known, it needs to be clarified. For example, “Durian fruit is popular in Thailand.” People who are not familiar with this word will not guess that it is a fruit if it is not said about it or if it is not later revealed in context.
Cities and villages
Another story comes out with geographical names. For them, the generic words are city, village, river, mountain. And species - the names of these objects. Mount Everest is one, but there are many mountains in general.
True, their use is possible both with the generic word, and without it. For example, you can say "climb Mount Everest." Here the context is saying - you can climb it up the mountain, and everyone has a name for it.
How to inflect geographical names with a generic word? There is a rule: if the name is of Slavic origin or borrowed a very long time and deeply entered the language, being perceived as its own, native, it is inclined to the case with the generic word. This applies both to words that are inclined by the type of noun (Moscow, Kiev), and by the type of adjective (Mikhailovsky, Bologoe).
Thus, it is right to say: in the city of Moscow, near the city of Kiev, in the village of Mikhailovka, from the village of Andreevsky, from the Amur River.
There are exceptions to this rule:
- If the name is neuter and ends in -o, -e. In the village of Larionovo, from the village of Telebukino.
- If the name matches the plural: in the city of Cheboksary, from the city of Mytishchi. Without a generic word, they are inflected as nouns or plural adjectives: in Cheboksary, from Mytishchi.
- When the genus of the generic word and name does not match: on the Yenisei River, in the village of Tarbagatai. The exception is the declination of cities in the Russian language - they vary in cases in any case (in the city of Moscow, from the city of Nakhodka).
Compound names
What happens if the name is compound and similar in form to the phrase? Despite the fact that the declension of such words has always been a literary norm, this norm goes out of date as obsolete, it is replaced by their indeclinability in combination with a generic word. In Stary Oskol - in the city of Stary Oskol.
And what is abroad?
If we are talking about foreign cities, then the rule is very simple. In combination with the generic word, they are not inclined.
Names ending in a / s most often have a feminine gender. Bowing: Bukhara - from Bukhara, Hiroshima - to Hiroshima. The exception is French names that have -a at the end and are usually short: in Gra, from Spa. They have a middle gender. Compound names from Spanish and related languages ​​are not inclined: in Santa Barbara.
But before the generic word, all are equal again. With him, all these names become indeclinable: from the city of Hiroshima.
If they are neuter and end in -o / -e, then they are unchanged in any case: in Tokyo - in the city of Tokyo.
Names that end in a consonant change according to the type of the second declension: in Austin, from Cape Town.
However, with the generic word, they become immutable. Therefore, it will be competent - in the city of Austin, from the city of Cape Town. Exceptions are names that have long been included in the Russian language. So, to say “in the city of Paris”, “from the city of London” will not be a mistake.
Norms on the verge of change
Why is it customary for people to speak in the "city of Moscow?" Why are linguistic instincts deceiving them? And it may not be deceiving. Mistakes characteristic of native speakers are usually associated with some of its patterns. For example, the words “evony” and “theirs”, formed from “him” and “their”, although erroneous, also reflect a linguistic pattern. Indeed, other possessive pronouns - mine, yours, yours - are inclined according to the type of adjectives. So people who are new to literary norms form them by analogy with these pronouns.
When a person says, “In the city of Moscow,” with firm confidence and without internal hesitation, this process most likely takes place. In colloquial speech, many parts of the assumption are reduced. They are not spoken, but implied. For example: "If hungry, dining around the corner." If not hungry, the dining room from around the corner will not go anywhere. It is assumed "If you are hungry, you can go to the dining room, it is around the corner" (that is, close). Scientists suggest that this is precisely the case. When a person decides to tell him “in the city of Moscow” or “in the city of Moscow”, he sees in this short phrase the abbreviation “in the city named Moscow”, “in the city with the name Moscow”. So there is no blunder in this. If you conduct a survey, many intuition will tell you just this form. Perhaps it is a matter of changing the language norm. And then to the question: "How is it right - in the city of Moscow or Moscow?" - the answer will be "In the city of Moscow." But while all the dictionaries record that the name of the city is inclined to cases.
"In the city of Moscow" as clericalism
But what if it seems that both options - “in the city of Moscow” or “in the city of Moscow” - sound unnatural? This also has a rational kernel. Moreover, the answer that it is correct to say “in Moscow” is not just a joke and an attempt to get away from the task. Indeed, phrases with a generic word are advised to be used in a limited way. They are a product of dry clerical style. In colloquial speech and on the pages of works of art, “in Moscow” will sound much more organically. And you won’t have to worry about the question: “In the city of Moscow or in the city of Moscow?”
When can not do without the generic word "city"? In cases where the name of the city coincides with the surname, for example, Kirov. To avoid confusion, we have to write Mr. Kirov. It is clear that you will not confuse Moscow with your surname. But can there be any confusion with the name of the Mother See? Yes, because there is also the Moscow River. Therefore, it is correct to write "on the banks of the Moscow River and in the city of Moscow ...". But we don’t even call the river "Moscow River", but always "Moscow River". Sometimes in hasty speech, these words seem to merge into one: Moskvarek. And they bow down together - on the banks of the Moscow River. But it is spacious and not quite literate, it is better to say the Moskva River.
You will not write to a friend in a letter or in the Internet message “in Moscow” or in “the city of Moscow at the moment of precipitation”. You will write - "It is raining in Moscow now."
Why is a generic word always used in a clerical language suitable for documents, business style? The language of documents is strict, just like the language of science, should not allow ambiguities and is obliged to accurately identify objects and phenomena. In the Russian language, hundreds of thousands of names of cities, villages, towns. Not to get lost in them is simply impossible. So you have to always clarify everything.
Striving for accuracy
Here is one friend for the first time gathered to visit another and finds out the address. What will the second friend say? If both live in Moscow, he certainly will not say "Moscow city, such and such a street." He will start immediately with the name of the street, for example, Builders. Of course, he will name the number of the house and apartment. It will tell you which nearest metro station (and from this, most likely, the story will begin) and which bus to get from it.
And then the same person came to draw up some kind of document. What will he write there? Moscow, st. The builders ... indeed, maybe we are not a Muscovite, but a Petersburger, in St. Petersburg there is also a Stroiteley street, as was shown in The Irony of Fate. And in Moscow, he just rents an apartment!
Yes, why the documents must indicate the name of the city, we already understood. But why the word "city?" Can you really think that this is a resident of a distant and unknown village in Moscow, whose name accidentally coincided with the capital? Or that he lives right at the bottom of the Moscow River? Of course not! But that’s the logic of language. If everywhere business style involves a generic word, then here too. For uniformity and clarity.
But for life and creativity, such a style is boring. It was not for nothing that Chukovsky called the abuse of clerical circulation in life a "clerical" - as a disease. So feel free to say "in Moscow."
And what about the official documents?
Since the use of the generic word is always and everywhere - the prerogative of a business style, let us turn to official documents. They may not tell us how it will be right - in the city of Moscow or in the city of Moscow, but will be prompted to conclusions how the name of the capital will sound in an indirect case. The fact is that there are many names of institutions or posts where the name of the capital is put in the genitive case, and it is unambiguous: the Government of Moscow, the Department of Health of Moscow, the mayor of Moscow. And it is so customary for us to hear them in the news and read in newspapers and ads that these forms have become natural to our ears. They indicate that the official language requires a change in the name of the city according to cases and give a clear answer to the question
"In the city of Moscow or in the city of Moscow." No options, in Moscow.
To summarize
On which note can the article end? It is best to say "in Moscow", but more interested in the norms of the native language will come in handy. You can always present yourself as a knowledgeable and competent person. And to the question: "How to write - in Moscow or Moscow?" - the answer is simple: in the city of Moscow.