Talk:счёты

Hi. Do you mind checking declensions in Zaliznyak for this entry and счёт, please? Specifically, in expressions like "сбрасывать со счето́в". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK.


 * Zaliznyak has two entries for счёты, but strangely both say they are masculine type 1a. The first one is tagged приспособление для счета and the second one у кого-л. с кем-л.; личные счеты. Possibly there is a typo here somewhere.
 * Zaliznyak also has two entries for счёт, with a whole lot of text. Basically, it can be either type 1a— (which means its plural is theoretical) with the tag подсчет, учет, or type 1c(1) with the tag документ; результат игры. This latter type would produce nominative plural счета́ and genitive plural счето́в. The extra text largely concerns various situations where the singular declension is strange:
 * Under the meaning подсчет, учет are found either без счёту or без счёта, similarly нет счёту or нет счёта and сбиться со счёту or сбиться со счёта; and быть на счету́ (быть в ограниченном количестве; приниматься в расчет); and also быть на хорошем (дурном, плохом) счету́ (о репутации).
 * Under the meaning документ; результат игры are found на текущем счету́; на чьём-л. счету́, на счету́ у кого-л. (in its figurative meaning).
 * These look to me to be special cases where a partitive or locative found, and probably should be stuck in usage notes. Benwing2 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, no entry for счета́. Benwing2 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. There seems to be no typo. Yes, "счёты" is type 1a. "сбрасывать со счето́в" must be from счёт, not счёты.
 * Yes, we probably need special cases for partitive and locative for счёт. You can use the examples you listed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)