Междугородный или междугородний?

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Dear all,

Can someone please explain the difference, if any between these two, i.e. междугородный vs. междугородний?

Also, if possible, please inform as to why the confusion arose concerning use of "ый" or "ий" in this case.

Are there other such unclear points in Russian grammar/spelling?

Thank you in advance for your kind input.

Regards,

FB

Comments

[ex-tritopor.livejournal.com]

No difference. Междугородний is refered to bus, междугородный - to the rest.

[yurka-spb.livejournal.com]

The difference is simple, междугородный is correct but междугородний is incorrect (although quite frequently used). However I cannot give you a general rule.

[khathi.livejournal.com]

Словарь трудностей русского языка" (http://dic.gramota.ru/search.php?word=%2A%EC%E5%E6%E4%F3%E3%EE%F0%EE%E4%ED%2A&lop=x&gorb=x&efr=x) doesn't seem to agree with you. It lists both variants as perfectly acceptable, with only difference that "междугородний" is generally spoken, not written.

[geish-a.livejournal.com]

both a re correct.

[maksa.livejournal.com]

Автозаводский and автозаводской
Электрозаводский and электрозаводской

More (http://dic.gramota.ru/search.php?word=*%E7%E0%E2%EE%E4%F1%EA*&lop=x&gorb=x&efr=x).

[nbuwe.livejournal.com]

Wrong analogy. -ый vs. -ой is about stress (-ый developed in unstressed positions).

[alexmgimo.livejournal.com]

Запасной и запасный выход

[laew.livejournal.com]

No difference at all. By the way, in Russian there is a heap of words with two correct forms.

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your answers.

I'd still be interested to know approximately why it came to be that in Russian there are many words with two correct forms.

Just from a language learner's perspective, I think it would help in analysing and retaining grammar rules.

[p4i1.livejournal.com]

I think all such words came from different dialects of Russian. There at least 3 major dialects: Moscovite (Central), Nothern and Southern. All these dialects are distingushed mostly by prononciation, but also have some amount significantly different words. Moscovite dialect is treated as standard for literature.

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

So, this means that it is not a question of different logical approaches but simply different of orthographical rules in Russian, as in:

honour - honor
colour - color
organise - organize
realise - realize
judgemental - judgmental

in English.

How does a foreigner know which is the Moscow dialect in the above Russian examples?

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

......but simply of different orthographical rules in Russian

[kegarawashii.livejournal.com]

as stated above, russian dialects mostly exist in oral speech. out of two similarly sounding variants one is usually perceived as peculiar to a more educated speech, the other belonging to a lesser educated one. (though not always so - sometimes one letter does change the meaning, like in языковый/языковой)
these two words don't seem to have this difference in flavor (or do they?). i'd say they have a slight difference in meaning and, therefore, in compatibility.

[noser.livejournal.com]

When both forms are constructed correctly morphologically and sound right, there's no reason to prefer one or the other.

[marta-mb.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure but I think both forms are linguistically correct.
The variation stems from suffix variants in Old Slavic: *-ьnъ- (gives Russ. -ный) and *-ьnj- (gives -ний). The first variant goes back to Proto-Indo-European suffix *-en-. The latter variant goes back to Proto-Indo-European compound suffix *-en-j-o/e- where both components designate the idea of belonging (here 'belonging to a town').
The same variants are found in Latin (aenus and aeneus 'of copper') and in Old Church Slavic.

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Thanks, this makes a lot of sense. I had suspected this sort of etymology. Just couldn't put my finger on it, until now.

[marta-mb.livejournal.com]

thanks for your positive response. If you like, I could expand this a bit.
In fact, the suffix *-n- observed in your adjective is used in Indo-European adjectives that denote belonging: Lat. aēnus ‘of copper’ (< PIE. *ajes-n-os) to aēs ‘copper’, fāginus ‘of beech’ to fāgus ‘beech-tree’, pōpulnus ‘of poplar’ to pōpulus ‘poplar-tree’.
These adjectives may have doublets: aēneus, fāgineus, pōpulneus, which were derived by means of adding the suffix *-j-o- to stems with the thematic *-e-: *ajes-n-e-j-o-s. In fact, this *-j-o- has the same meaning as *-n- so the latter forms are pleonastic from the point of word-formation. In Russian we have the case when both these variants co-exist. Old Church Slavic have approximately identic examples:
OSL. golo'binъ (with the simple *-n-) 'of the doves' vs. golo'mbinь (with the compound *-n-j-).
I am sorry if this looks a bit too academic but historical linguistics is the only key to such cases.

"These adjectives may have doublets"

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

"These adjectives may have doublets" - That's what I was thinking. So while the answer may be "academic", at least it's thorough and resolves the issue with a satisfying (satisfactory)* degree of finality.

*There's an English "doublet" for you.

Thanks again for enlightening us.

[freedomcry.livejournal.com]

I naturally tend to pronounce it as «междугородний», but remember it spelt almost exclusively «междугородный».