Russian cases: A few examples, I'm really confusedProper use of ничто when answeringWhat are the lesser known Russian cases?Does “case” equal “declension”? 6 declensions for 16 cases?Noun case and pluralitywhy друг is in genitive case in this sentence?How to express “feel hatred”Genitive case and datesVerb - question words database or apiна день рождения vs на дне рожденияWhy is “таких театров” in genitive in “таких театров повсюду – пруд пруди”?
Can hydraulic brake levers get hot when brakes overheat?
Would it take an action or something similar to activate the blindsight property of a Dragon Mask?
What should tie a collection of short-stories together?
Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths
Identifying the interval from A♭ to D♯
Software described as 香ばしい
Happy pi day, everyone!
How to change two letters closest to a string and one letter immediately after a string using notepad++
Informing my boss about nasty remarks about me from a colleague
What does it mean to make a bootable LiveUSB?
Why are there 40 737 Max planes in flight when they have been grounded as not airworthy?
Rejected in the fourth interview round, citing insufficient years of experience
How is the Swiss post e-voting system supposed to work, and how was it wrong?
Science-fiction short story where space navy wanted hospital ships and settlers had guns mounted everywhere
Can I respond to my Infinite loop with a summon
Make a transparent 448*448 image
How to simplify this time periods definition interface?
Python if-else code style for reduced code
All function values have been reset after restarting Mathematica
PTIJ: Who should pay for Uber rides: the child or the parent?
Rules about breaking the rules. How do I do it well?
What has been your most complicated TikZ drawing?
How to explain that I do not want to visit a country due to personal safety concern?
What options are left, if Britain cannot decide?
Russian cases: A few examples, I'm really confused
Proper use of ничто when answeringWhat are the lesser known Russian cases?Does “case” equal “declension”? 6 declensions for 16 cases?Noun case and pluralitywhy друг is in genitive case in this sentence?How to express “feel hatred”Genitive case and datesVerb - question words database or apiна день рождения vs на дне рожденияWhy is “таких театров” in genitive in “таких театров повсюду – пруд пруди”?
I'm doing the Pimsleur Russian audio course and I've come across some sentences that I'm not sure about.
Example 1:
I have money = у меня́ есть де́ньги.
So far, so good. "At my place, there is money." It seems intuitive that money is in the nominative here. But then:
I have enough money = у меня́ доста́точно де́нег.
Although the sentence is almost the same the money is now in the genitive.
Is that really the case here or am I misidentifying cases?
And then Example 2:
Can you give me a little money? = Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го
де́нег?
This is really confusing, I'm not sure I'm hearing it right. But it sounds like here money is also in the genitive. But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative. Or what am I missing?
Большо́е Спаси́бо for your help.
падежи
New contributor
add a comment |
I'm doing the Pimsleur Russian audio course and I've come across some sentences that I'm not sure about.
Example 1:
I have money = у меня́ есть де́ньги.
So far, so good. "At my place, there is money." It seems intuitive that money is in the nominative here. But then:
I have enough money = у меня́ доста́точно де́нег.
Although the sentence is almost the same the money is now in the genitive.
Is that really the case here or am I misidentifying cases?
And then Example 2:
Can you give me a little money? = Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го
де́нег?
This is really confusing, I'm not sure I'm hearing it right. But it sounds like here money is also in the genitive. But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative. Or what am I missing?
Большо́е Спаси́бо for your help.
падежи
New contributor
add a comment |
I'm doing the Pimsleur Russian audio course and I've come across some sentences that I'm not sure about.
Example 1:
I have money = у меня́ есть де́ньги.
So far, so good. "At my place, there is money." It seems intuitive that money is in the nominative here. But then:
I have enough money = у меня́ доста́точно де́нег.
Although the sentence is almost the same the money is now in the genitive.
Is that really the case here or am I misidentifying cases?
And then Example 2:
Can you give me a little money? = Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го
де́нег?
This is really confusing, I'm not sure I'm hearing it right. But it sounds like here money is also in the genitive. But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative. Or what am I missing?
Большо́е Спаси́бо for your help.
падежи
New contributor
I'm doing the Pimsleur Russian audio course and I've come across some sentences that I'm not sure about.
Example 1:
I have money = у меня́ есть де́ньги.
So far, so good. "At my place, there is money." It seems intuitive that money is in the nominative here. But then:
I have enough money = у меня́ доста́точно де́нег.
Although the sentence is almost the same the money is now in the genitive.
Is that really the case here or am I misidentifying cases?
And then Example 2:
Can you give me a little money? = Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го
де́нег?
This is really confusing, I'm not sure I'm hearing it right. But it sounds like here money is also in the genitive. But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative. Or what am I missing?
Большо́е Спаси́бо for your help.
падежи
падежи
New contributor
New contributor
edited 21 hours ago
Quassnoi♦
31.3k248117
31.3k248117
New contributor
asked 21 hours ago
user1622user1622
412
412
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You got the cases right in all three sentences.
I'll try to provide English translations which would be as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible.
Please note that they are not actual translations, they are English approximations of grammatical structure of the original Russian phrases.
У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.
Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say "I have something", they say "there is something next to me" to convey the same meaning.
In English, you would have said "I have him" but "he's next to me".
If you look closely you can see that you use "him" in the first sentence but "he" in the second one.
This is because grammatically, "him" is an object in the first case, but a subject in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.
У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.
In English you would normally use "I have enough money", but there are cases when you are actually using "of": "I've heard enough of this nonsense".
If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said "I have enough of him" in English. "Of something" mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.
Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?
Same logic as above here.
But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
In Russian, a direct object to дать ("to give"), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason денег is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not денег that is the direct object, but немного.
Денег complements the немного and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And немного requires a genitive.
1
I've never heard the "next to me" interpretation (but then I never taught Russian). Is this how Russian taught? To me that sounds wrong. If I wanted to say "next to me" I'd say "рядом со мной" or "возле меня". Conversely, "У меня есть" is unambiguously "I have".
– Andrew Savinykh
16 hours ago
6
@AndrewSavinykh: this sounds natural to you as a native speaker (I'm assuming you are from your name) but proximal possession is a foreign concept for the speakers of most other languages. The verbatim interpretation of у меня есть друг is "there is a friend at me", or "near me", or "next to me". In the same way English "I do not like apples", if translated word by word into Russian, would yield an ass-backwards phrase like я не делаю любить яблоки or similar. Of course you're right and у меня есть means "I have", but it does not help to explain why are the cases used the way they are.
– Quassnoi♦
16 hours ago
1
"There are money next to me" - correction: there IS money (on me).
– tum_
13 hours ago
1
This is quite understandable, as long as it is also understood by the student that it is wrong. "У меня́ есть де́ньги" does not mean that I have money on me (leave alone "next to me"). Money also could be in my apartment or in my bank account and I would still have it. By adding "next to me" we are introducing a restriction, that is not there in the original wording. So I feel that it is important to point out, that while we are using these words for our explanation of grammatical cases, the expression does not actually mean that.
– Andrew Savinykh
12 hours ago
1
@Norrius: not quite. Russian phrases у дома есть магазин and у меня есть друг, meaning, respectively, "there is a shop next to the house" and "I have a friend" have exactly same grammatical structure ("there is X in close proximity to Y"). It's not "of mine", it's "next to me". It's just a language peculiarity and the OP apparently is aware of it, so I'm not trying to explain the meaning in my post, just the grammatical structure.
– Quassnoi♦
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
You undestand it right.
You just need to ask the right question to understand.
It's easy here:
"I have (what?) money" - "У меня есть (что?) деньги"
And a little bit more complicated here:
"I have enought (of what?) money" - "У меня достаточно (чего?) денег"
Same thing with "little". Because when you give an additional word to explain "how much", it's always "how much of what", not "how much what"
New contributor
add a comment |
I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
This is wrong, "give something" goes with accusative, not nominative. It's actually not wrong to say "дать деньги" for "give the money", when you refer to a predefined sum of money identified by the context.
Additionally, there are quantifiers used with mass nouns, such as "достaточно" or "немнoго". These require genitive (as you have seen), independently of the verb you used:
у меня́ есть де́ньги -> у меня́ доста́точно де́нег (nominative -> genitive)
Вы мо́жете дать мне де́ньги? -> Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? (accusative -> genitive)
де́ньги may be a poor example because it has the same form in nominative and accusative.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "451"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
user1622 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frussian.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f18303%2frussian-cases-a-few-examples-im-really-confused%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You got the cases right in all three sentences.
I'll try to provide English translations which would be as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible.
Please note that they are not actual translations, they are English approximations of grammatical structure of the original Russian phrases.
У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.
Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say "I have something", they say "there is something next to me" to convey the same meaning.
In English, you would have said "I have him" but "he's next to me".
If you look closely you can see that you use "him" in the first sentence but "he" in the second one.
This is because grammatically, "him" is an object in the first case, but a subject in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.
У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.
In English you would normally use "I have enough money", but there are cases when you are actually using "of": "I've heard enough of this nonsense".
If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said "I have enough of him" in English. "Of something" mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.
Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?
Same logic as above here.
But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
In Russian, a direct object to дать ("to give"), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason денег is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not денег that is the direct object, but немного.
Денег complements the немного and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And немного requires a genitive.
1
I've never heard the "next to me" interpretation (but then I never taught Russian). Is this how Russian taught? To me that sounds wrong. If I wanted to say "next to me" I'd say "рядом со мной" or "возле меня". Conversely, "У меня есть" is unambiguously "I have".
– Andrew Savinykh
16 hours ago
6
@AndrewSavinykh: this sounds natural to you as a native speaker (I'm assuming you are from your name) but proximal possession is a foreign concept for the speakers of most other languages. The verbatim interpretation of у меня есть друг is "there is a friend at me", or "near me", or "next to me". In the same way English "I do not like apples", if translated word by word into Russian, would yield an ass-backwards phrase like я не делаю любить яблоки or similar. Of course you're right and у меня есть means "I have", but it does not help to explain why are the cases used the way they are.
– Quassnoi♦
16 hours ago
1
"There are money next to me" - correction: there IS money (on me).
– tum_
13 hours ago
1
This is quite understandable, as long as it is also understood by the student that it is wrong. "У меня́ есть де́ньги" does not mean that I have money on me (leave alone "next to me"). Money also could be in my apartment or in my bank account and I would still have it. By adding "next to me" we are introducing a restriction, that is not there in the original wording. So I feel that it is important to point out, that while we are using these words for our explanation of grammatical cases, the expression does not actually mean that.
– Andrew Savinykh
12 hours ago
1
@Norrius: not quite. Russian phrases у дома есть магазин and у меня есть друг, meaning, respectively, "there is a shop next to the house" and "I have a friend" have exactly same grammatical structure ("there is X in close proximity to Y"). It's not "of mine", it's "next to me". It's just a language peculiarity and the OP apparently is aware of it, so I'm not trying to explain the meaning in my post, just the grammatical structure.
– Quassnoi♦
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
You got the cases right in all three sentences.
I'll try to provide English translations which would be as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible.
Please note that they are not actual translations, they are English approximations of grammatical structure of the original Russian phrases.
У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.
Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say "I have something", they say "there is something next to me" to convey the same meaning.
In English, you would have said "I have him" but "he's next to me".
If you look closely you can see that you use "him" in the first sentence but "he" in the second one.
This is because grammatically, "him" is an object in the first case, but a subject in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.
У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.
In English you would normally use "I have enough money", but there are cases when you are actually using "of": "I've heard enough of this nonsense".
If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said "I have enough of him" in English. "Of something" mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.
Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?
Same logic as above here.
But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
In Russian, a direct object to дать ("to give"), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason денег is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not денег that is the direct object, but немного.
Денег complements the немного and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And немного requires a genitive.
1
I've never heard the "next to me" interpretation (but then I never taught Russian). Is this how Russian taught? To me that sounds wrong. If I wanted to say "next to me" I'd say "рядом со мной" or "возле меня". Conversely, "У меня есть" is unambiguously "I have".
– Andrew Savinykh
16 hours ago
6
@AndrewSavinykh: this sounds natural to you as a native speaker (I'm assuming you are from your name) but proximal possession is a foreign concept for the speakers of most other languages. The verbatim interpretation of у меня есть друг is "there is a friend at me", or "near me", or "next to me". In the same way English "I do not like apples", if translated word by word into Russian, would yield an ass-backwards phrase like я не делаю любить яблоки or similar. Of course you're right and у меня есть means "I have", but it does not help to explain why are the cases used the way they are.
– Quassnoi♦
16 hours ago
1
"There are money next to me" - correction: there IS money (on me).
– tum_
13 hours ago
1
This is quite understandable, as long as it is also understood by the student that it is wrong. "У меня́ есть де́ньги" does not mean that I have money on me (leave alone "next to me"). Money also could be in my apartment or in my bank account and I would still have it. By adding "next to me" we are introducing a restriction, that is not there in the original wording. So I feel that it is important to point out, that while we are using these words for our explanation of grammatical cases, the expression does not actually mean that.
– Andrew Savinykh
12 hours ago
1
@Norrius: not quite. Russian phrases у дома есть магазин and у меня есть друг, meaning, respectively, "there is a shop next to the house" and "I have a friend" have exactly same grammatical structure ("there is X in close proximity to Y"). It's not "of mine", it's "next to me". It's just a language peculiarity and the OP apparently is aware of it, so I'm not trying to explain the meaning in my post, just the grammatical structure.
– Quassnoi♦
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
You got the cases right in all three sentences.
I'll try to provide English translations which would be as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible.
Please note that they are not actual translations, they are English approximations of grammatical structure of the original Russian phrases.
У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.
Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say "I have something", they say "there is something next to me" to convey the same meaning.
In English, you would have said "I have him" but "he's next to me".
If you look closely you can see that you use "him" in the first sentence but "he" in the second one.
This is because grammatically, "him" is an object in the first case, but a subject in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.
У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.
In English you would normally use "I have enough money", but there are cases when you are actually using "of": "I've heard enough of this nonsense".
If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said "I have enough of him" in English. "Of something" mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.
Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?
Same logic as above here.
But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
In Russian, a direct object to дать ("to give"), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason денег is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not денег that is the direct object, but немного.
Денег complements the немного and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And немного requires a genitive.
You got the cases right in all three sentences.
I'll try to provide English translations which would be as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible.
Please note that they are not actual translations, they are English approximations of grammatical structure of the original Russian phrases.
У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.
Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say "I have something", they say "there is something next to me" to convey the same meaning.
In English, you would have said "I have him" but "he's next to me".
If you look closely you can see that you use "him" in the first sentence but "he" in the second one.
This is because grammatically, "him" is an object in the first case, but a subject in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.
У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.
In English you would normally use "I have enough money", but there are cases when you are actually using "of": "I've heard enough of this nonsense".
If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said "I have enough of him" in English. "Of something" mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.
Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?
Same logic as above here.
But I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
In Russian, a direct object to дать ("to give"), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason денег is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not денег that is the direct object, but немного.
Денег complements the немного and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And немного requires a genitive.
edited 3 mins ago
answered 21 hours ago
Quassnoi♦Quassnoi
31.3k248117
31.3k248117
1
I've never heard the "next to me" interpretation (but then I never taught Russian). Is this how Russian taught? To me that sounds wrong. If I wanted to say "next to me" I'd say "рядом со мной" or "возле меня". Conversely, "У меня есть" is unambiguously "I have".
– Andrew Savinykh
16 hours ago
6
@AndrewSavinykh: this sounds natural to you as a native speaker (I'm assuming you are from your name) but proximal possession is a foreign concept for the speakers of most other languages. The verbatim interpretation of у меня есть друг is "there is a friend at me", or "near me", or "next to me". In the same way English "I do not like apples", if translated word by word into Russian, would yield an ass-backwards phrase like я не делаю любить яблоки or similar. Of course you're right and у меня есть means "I have", but it does not help to explain why are the cases used the way they are.
– Quassnoi♦
16 hours ago
1
"There are money next to me" - correction: there IS money (on me).
– tum_
13 hours ago
1
This is quite understandable, as long as it is also understood by the student that it is wrong. "У меня́ есть де́ньги" does not mean that I have money on me (leave alone "next to me"). Money also could be in my apartment or in my bank account and I would still have it. By adding "next to me" we are introducing a restriction, that is not there in the original wording. So I feel that it is important to point out, that while we are using these words for our explanation of grammatical cases, the expression does not actually mean that.
– Andrew Savinykh
12 hours ago
1
@Norrius: not quite. Russian phrases у дома есть магазин and у меня есть друг, meaning, respectively, "there is a shop next to the house" and "I have a friend" have exactly same grammatical structure ("there is X in close proximity to Y"). It's not "of mine", it's "next to me". It's just a language peculiarity and the OP apparently is aware of it, so I'm not trying to explain the meaning in my post, just the grammatical structure.
– Quassnoi♦
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
1
I've never heard the "next to me" interpretation (but then I never taught Russian). Is this how Russian taught? To me that sounds wrong. If I wanted to say "next to me" I'd say "рядом со мной" or "возле меня". Conversely, "У меня есть" is unambiguously "I have".
– Andrew Savinykh
16 hours ago
6
@AndrewSavinykh: this sounds natural to you as a native speaker (I'm assuming you are from your name) but proximal possession is a foreign concept for the speakers of most other languages. The verbatim interpretation of у меня есть друг is "there is a friend at me", or "near me", or "next to me". In the same way English "I do not like apples", if translated word by word into Russian, would yield an ass-backwards phrase like я не делаю любить яблоки or similar. Of course you're right and у меня есть means "I have", but it does not help to explain why are the cases used the way they are.
– Quassnoi♦
16 hours ago
1
"There are money next to me" - correction: there IS money (on me).
– tum_
13 hours ago
1
This is quite understandable, as long as it is also understood by the student that it is wrong. "У меня́ есть де́ньги" does not mean that I have money on me (leave alone "next to me"). Money also could be in my apartment or in my bank account and I would still have it. By adding "next to me" we are introducing a restriction, that is not there in the original wording. So I feel that it is important to point out, that while we are using these words for our explanation of grammatical cases, the expression does not actually mean that.
– Andrew Savinykh
12 hours ago
1
@Norrius: not quite. Russian phrases у дома есть магазин and у меня есть друг, meaning, respectively, "there is a shop next to the house" and "I have a friend" have exactly same grammatical structure ("there is X in close proximity to Y"). It's not "of mine", it's "next to me". It's just a language peculiarity and the OP apparently is aware of it, so I'm not trying to explain the meaning in my post, just the grammatical structure.
– Quassnoi♦
2 hours ago
1
1
I've never heard the "next to me" interpretation (but then I never taught Russian). Is this how Russian taught? To me that sounds wrong. If I wanted to say "next to me" I'd say "рядом со мной" or "возле меня". Conversely, "У меня есть" is unambiguously "I have".
– Andrew Savinykh
16 hours ago
I've never heard the "next to me" interpretation (but then I never taught Russian). Is this how Russian taught? To me that sounds wrong. If I wanted to say "next to me" I'd say "рядом со мной" or "возле меня". Conversely, "У меня есть" is unambiguously "I have".
– Andrew Savinykh
16 hours ago
6
6
@AndrewSavinykh: this sounds natural to you as a native speaker (I'm assuming you are from your name) but proximal possession is a foreign concept for the speakers of most other languages. The verbatim interpretation of у меня есть друг is "there is a friend at me", or "near me", or "next to me". In the same way English "I do not like apples", if translated word by word into Russian, would yield an ass-backwards phrase like я не делаю любить яблоки or similar. Of course you're right and у меня есть means "I have", but it does not help to explain why are the cases used the way they are.
– Quassnoi♦
16 hours ago
@AndrewSavinykh: this sounds natural to you as a native speaker (I'm assuming you are from your name) but proximal possession is a foreign concept for the speakers of most other languages. The verbatim interpretation of у меня есть друг is "there is a friend at me", or "near me", or "next to me". In the same way English "I do not like apples", if translated word by word into Russian, would yield an ass-backwards phrase like я не делаю любить яблоки or similar. Of course you're right and у меня есть means "I have", but it does not help to explain why are the cases used the way they are.
– Quassnoi♦
16 hours ago
1
1
"There are money next to me" - correction: there IS money (on me).
– tum_
13 hours ago
"There are money next to me" - correction: there IS money (on me).
– tum_
13 hours ago
1
1
This is quite understandable, as long as it is also understood by the student that it is wrong. "У меня́ есть де́ньги" does not mean that I have money on me (leave alone "next to me"). Money also could be in my apartment or in my bank account and I would still have it. By adding "next to me" we are introducing a restriction, that is not there in the original wording. So I feel that it is important to point out, that while we are using these words for our explanation of grammatical cases, the expression does not actually mean that.
– Andrew Savinykh
12 hours ago
This is quite understandable, as long as it is also understood by the student that it is wrong. "У меня́ есть де́ньги" does not mean that I have money on me (leave alone "next to me"). Money also could be in my apartment or in my bank account and I would still have it. By adding "next to me" we are introducing a restriction, that is not there in the original wording. So I feel that it is important to point out, that while we are using these words for our explanation of grammatical cases, the expression does not actually mean that.
– Andrew Savinykh
12 hours ago
1
1
@Norrius: not quite. Russian phrases у дома есть магазин and у меня есть друг, meaning, respectively, "there is a shop next to the house" and "I have a friend" have exactly same grammatical structure ("there is X in close proximity to Y"). It's not "of mine", it's "next to me". It's just a language peculiarity and the OP apparently is aware of it, so I'm not trying to explain the meaning in my post, just the grammatical structure.
– Quassnoi♦
2 hours ago
@Norrius: not quite. Russian phrases у дома есть магазин and у меня есть друг, meaning, respectively, "there is a shop next to the house" and "I have a friend" have exactly same grammatical structure ("there is X in close proximity to Y"). It's not "of mine", it's "next to me". It's just a language peculiarity and the OP apparently is aware of it, so I'm not trying to explain the meaning in my post, just the grammatical structure.
– Quassnoi♦
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
You undestand it right.
You just need to ask the right question to understand.
It's easy here:
"I have (what?) money" - "У меня есть (что?) деньги"
And a little bit more complicated here:
"I have enought (of what?) money" - "У меня достаточно (чего?) денег"
Same thing with "little". Because when you give an additional word to explain "how much", it's always "how much of what", not "how much what"
New contributor
add a comment |
You undestand it right.
You just need to ask the right question to understand.
It's easy here:
"I have (what?) money" - "У меня есть (что?) деньги"
And a little bit more complicated here:
"I have enought (of what?) money" - "У меня достаточно (чего?) денег"
Same thing with "little". Because when you give an additional word to explain "how much", it's always "how much of what", not "how much what"
New contributor
add a comment |
You undestand it right.
You just need to ask the right question to understand.
It's easy here:
"I have (what?) money" - "У меня есть (что?) деньги"
And a little bit more complicated here:
"I have enought (of what?) money" - "У меня достаточно (чего?) денег"
Same thing with "little". Because when you give an additional word to explain "how much", it's always "how much of what", not "how much what"
New contributor
You undestand it right.
You just need to ask the right question to understand.
It's easy here:
"I have (what?) money" - "У меня есть (что?) деньги"
And a little bit more complicated here:
"I have enought (of what?) money" - "У меня достаточно (чего?) денег"
Same thing with "little". Because when you give an additional word to explain "how much", it's always "how much of what", not "how much what"
New contributor
New contributor
answered 21 hours ago
SofyaSofya
692
692
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
This is wrong, "give something" goes with accusative, not nominative. It's actually not wrong to say "дать деньги" for "give the money", when you refer to a predefined sum of money identified by the context.
Additionally, there are quantifiers used with mass nouns, such as "достaточно" or "немнoго". These require genitive (as you have seen), independently of the verb you used:
у меня́ есть де́ньги -> у меня́ доста́точно де́нег (nominative -> genitive)
Вы мо́жете дать мне де́ньги? -> Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? (accusative -> genitive)
де́ньги may be a poor example because it has the same form in nominative and accusative.
add a comment |
I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
This is wrong, "give something" goes with accusative, not nominative. It's actually not wrong to say "дать деньги" for "give the money", when you refer to a predefined sum of money identified by the context.
Additionally, there are quantifiers used with mass nouns, such as "достaточно" or "немнoго". These require genitive (as you have seen), independently of the verb you used:
у меня́ есть де́ньги -> у меня́ доста́точно де́нег (nominative -> genitive)
Вы мо́жете дать мне де́ньги? -> Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? (accusative -> genitive)
де́ньги may be a poor example because it has the same form in nominative and accusative.
add a comment |
I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
This is wrong, "give something" goes with accusative, not nominative. It's actually not wrong to say "дать деньги" for "give the money", when you refer to a predefined sum of money identified by the context.
Additionally, there are quantifiers used with mass nouns, such as "достaточно" or "немнoго". These require genitive (as you have seen), independently of the verb you used:
у меня́ есть де́ньги -> у меня́ доста́точно де́нег (nominative -> genitive)
Вы мо́жете дать мне де́ньги? -> Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? (accusative -> genitive)
де́ньги may be a poor example because it has the same form in nominative and accusative.
I expect it to be in the nominative because "give something" and the something would be in nominative
This is wrong, "give something" goes with accusative, not nominative. It's actually not wrong to say "дать деньги" for "give the money", when you refer to a predefined sum of money identified by the context.
Additionally, there are quantifiers used with mass nouns, such as "достaточно" or "немнoго". These require genitive (as you have seen), independently of the verb you used:
у меня́ есть де́ньги -> у меня́ доста́точно де́нег (nominative -> genitive)
Вы мо́жете дать мне де́ньги? -> Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? (accusative -> genitive)
де́ньги may be a poor example because it has the same form in nominative and accusative.
answered 4 hours ago
Dmitry GrigoryevDmitry Grigoryev
487311
487311
add a comment |
add a comment |
user1622 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user1622 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user1622 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user1622 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Russian Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frussian.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f18303%2frussian-cases-a-few-examples-im-really-confused%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown