Genitive-Nominative and Genitive-Accusative alternation exists to various degrees in Slavic and Baltic languages. In Russian the alternation of Gen-Nom and Gen-Acc in negative sentences is conditioned by a combination of syntactic, semantic, and morphological factors. In a series of papers from (Borschev and Partee 1998) through (Borschev et al. 2008) my Russian colleagues and I have been studying the semantics of Genitive of Negation (Gen Neg). This talk addresses an apparent contradiction between our older work on Subject Gen Neg and our newer work (and Olga Kagan's) on Subject Gen Neg, Object Gen Neg, and Genitive of Intensionality. Both we and Kagan argue that Gen NPs in these alternations are of property type <e,t> rather than entity type e, and our recent work has addressed how verb meanings shift along with the types of their arguments. But Borschev and Partee (1998) argued that the "bleaching" of the open class of intransitive verbs that appear in existential sentences with Subject Gen Neg involves the addition of contextual assumptions rather than any lexical change in meaning. In this paper we resolve that apparent contradiction by arguing that existential sentences, both affirmative and negative, have <e,t> subjects which may arise by a 'formal' semantic shift that need not affect substantive lexical content.