Talk:счёты

@Benwing2 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)

@Atitarev 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:
    1. 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).
    2. 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)

@Atitarev 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)