The selection of the phrase `s soboj' and the Russian prefixes 1. The Russian expression `s soboj' can be combined with various verbs such as nesti, vezti, vesti, tascshit', zvat', priglashat', byt' etc. The semantics of all of these verbs (except for byt') contains a component `X causes Y to move from A to B'. Some of the verbs also require the presence of a component `X moves from A to B' in their semantics among which are nesti, vezti, vesti and others (the verbs of transfer henceforth). These will be the object of our analysis. (1) On prines s soboj knigu. (2) On pozval ee s soboj. 2. The verbs of transfer show an interesting property with respect to the selection of the phrase `s soboj'. A wide range of spatial prefixes can be easily attached to the verbs of transfer. (3) prinesti, unesti, vynesti, otnesti, pronesti, podnesti, zanesti, perenesti, donesti It seems that the choice of the prefix influences the degree of grammaticality with respect to the selection of `s soboj'. Whereas pri-, u-, vy- and pro- (henceforth the first group) are perfectly good, za-, pere-, v-, do-, pod- and ot- (the second group) range from rather awkward to highly degraded. (4) On prines s soboj celyj meshok deneg. (5) Jetot sekret on unes s soboj v mogilu. (6) Skol'ko paketov on vynes s soboj? (7) ? On zanjos s soboj kartonnyj stakan s kofe i sel okolo menja. (8) ? Sam zhe Evfimij byl vzjat v Kazanskij mitropolichij dom, kuda on perenes s soboj i ikonu. (9) ??? On dones s soboj v nash ar'ergard vo vsej svezhesti atmosferu francuzskogo vojska, kotoroe tak chuzhdo bylo dlja nas (L. Tolstoj). (10) * On otnes s soboj celyj meshok deneg. (11) * On podnes s soboj celyj meshok deneg. The observation that it is the choice of the prefix that influences the grammaticality can be confirmed by the fact that the other verbs of transfer (with the same prefixes) show the same patterns of grammaticality. (12a) On privel s soboj celyj polk soldat. (12b) On uvel s soboj celyj polk soldat. (12c) On vyvel s soboj celyj polk soldat. (12d) ? On zavel s soboj v les celyj polk soldat. (12e) ? On perevel s soboj cherez reku celyj polk soldat. (12f) ?? On dovel s soboj do lesa polk soldat. (12g) ?? On podvel s soboj k kapitanu celyj polk soldat. 3. How to explain these facts? Our account is based on several general assumptions. First, we propose that the function of `s soboj' is to modify the resultant state of the predicate (along the lines of Ramchand 2003). This can be shown by the fact that `s soboj' resists combining with true resultatives like `p'janym'. (13) ?? Ja privel ego s soboj pjanym. The meaning of this modification is something like `X has Y with himself' i.e. the subject is located in the same place as the trasferred object in the resultant phase of the event denoted by the verb. 4. We assume that the function of a subclass of Russian prefixes, so called lexical prefixes, is to modify the resultant state being predicated of the resultee (Ramchand 2004). 5. If we look at the verbs that do not combine with `s soboj' we will find that they have an interesting property. They are not felicitous in the context such that the first person subject is located in the same place as the trasferred object in the resultant phase. [I'm in B] Ja prines Y. [I'm in where I carried Y] Ja unes Y. [I'm in where I carried Y] Ja prones Y.